Are all the religions equally corrupt?

[Vajrahridaya]

I am buying it because so MANY claim it. I know people that has provenly been falsely accused of rape so I don`t have a problem discarding one or a few claims but this is a LOT.

 

Well, I'm friends with some of his attendants and translators from the times this is all supposed to have occurred, which is towards the final years of his life. Supposedly he did practice Highest Yoga Tantra as presented in the Kaula Shaiva lineage texts, which is absolutely acceptable for a Tantric Master. The molestations, sexual predator and the secret door stuff is bogus though.

 

If he was doing all that stuff all night every night, he really didn't sleep, because he was up in public every single day anywhere from 3:30 for morning Arati, or at 5am for the Guru Gita chant from the Skanda Purana. He wrote and published probably about 100 books and gave thousands of talks and hundreds of intensives where people really did experience intense, shit you not, full blown kundalini awakening.

 

Also, these accusations never made it to court record, so. Yeah, I don't buy it. I think many of these ploys were to force SYDA to settle out of court in order to just quiet negative press and also to keep the foundation going.

 

Also the new guy who runs the site was supposedly a sexual predator at the Ashram and was ousted for it. So, this is the classic accuse the accuser of what you were accused of out of a distraction measure. This is also the case with certain x-swami's too.

 

Nah, I think it's more complicated than it's been made out to be. I think Muktananda is more innocent than we are led to believe through this site.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

***********************************. So, this is the classic accuse the accuser of what you were accused of out of a distraction measure. This is also the case with certain x-swami's too.

 

 

 

Is this a fact or an allegation? If you are going to name someone like this in this context it could be libelous ... I suggest you remove it.

[goldisheavy]

Hi,

 

I don't want to watch it again but she says something like part of the problem was the place of women in trad Tibetan culture. My only point is that while this may be the case (that women were second class citizens) this view is specifically prohibited for those practicing tantra. So if a lama had this opinion of women they were already breaking their samaya.

 

So I think the woman was correct after all. Samayas are secret or otherwise not well known, so how is she supposed to know about that? And her observation about the general Tibetan culture is correct I believe.

 

Even if she knows about samaya, it is still a reasonable thing to believe that the culture is weightier than the samaya. Your culture was put there by generations of people, friends and family, and from a Buddhist POV it's fixed firmly by countless past lives. Samaya is a relatively arbitrary decision on your part that is not as stable and as weighty as the basic culture. Samaya is more superficial than the basic cultural assumptions. That's why it takes vigilance and willpower to keep samaya, because it's not normal.

 

Perhaps the lama may have thought that in fancying and shagging young western women he was not denigrating them I don't know.

 

Of course the lama thought that. The lama thinks that he's a ray of sunshine and that if he deigns to shag some woman, it's unquestionably a blessing.

 

For me the root is not the sex scandals which I don't actually care about much but the whole misunderstanding of the lama/guru thing. If the guru does anything they point out one's true nature and the true nature of reality for you. That is by being realised themselves they give you an external example (is that the right word) to resonate with ... so that you can benefit by getting closer to your own true nature. They don't give you anything because you already have it. So it is not necessary to suspend all caution and rationality ... in fact that would be a denial of your own buddha-nature. EVEN IF you regard your teacher as a Buddha you do not approach them in a gormless and naive way. You owe it to them and to yourself to keep your eyes open and your wits about you. If they try to pull the wool over your eyes and to act otherwise then pack up your cushion and move on.

 

I agree. That's how it works in theory. In practice what happens is that there is a famous lama and you've only heard good things about the lama (saying bad things about the lama breaks samaya). The lama says you're special, which is exactly what you wanted to hear all along. One thing leads to another, and by the time you realize what happened the deed is done, as they say.

 

Authority is a powerful drug. To deny that would be senseless and a denial of our own nature, as you'd probably agree.

Edited July 25, 2011 by goldisheavy

[mYTHmAKER]

Dont know Vaj,who can tell these things ,if they are true or not true.Neither of can for sure.

Suspicion and cautioness can be good.

I am certanly glad that there is all sort of information true and untrue ,right or wrong out there becouse it will make more people stand on their own two feet and learn to be responsible for themselves and others.

I have seen people in your position who have very close relationship with the spiritual organisation being even more blind than the onlookers(including my own family).

I have also vitnessed most idiotic types of behaviour (whilst on the road in Asia and staying at monastries and ashrams) ,strange exibithion of spirituality and attitudes verging on being totally bonkers-all in the name of organisation or guru/spiritual leader.And have met women who have been abused by gurus and left deeply scarred.

Also I came across some wonderful mature people doing just fine learning with their gurus/teachers.

Your expirience is valid to you ,I can only aprriciate it and take in consideration as I do with everything else.

 

I agree that was the teaching.

If one were to listen to priests they preach some pretty lofty things but still molest little boys.

Am curious - have you ever had conversations with your mom re Muktananda and his sexual behavior?

[Vajrahridaya]

Is this a fact or an allegation? If you are going to name someone like this in this context it could be libelous ... I suggest you remove it.

 

Well, neither Muktananda nor Sogyal Rinpoche were proven in the court of law to be as such either. I'll remove the name though.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[mYTHmAKER]

p.s. I do think SYDA is a bit creepy though and is too expensive! Another reason why I had to leave. Not as expensive as many other groups and when I was young they worked on a sliding scale making everything very inexpensive for me until the age of 24, but still. 500 dollars for a weekend long intensive, it does include 3 meals, or used to but I don't think it does anymore? I think they are down to one day as well and you don't get free room and board anymore like you used to with the price? It's just crazy. Gurumayi has mentioned that SYDA does it's own thing and she's tried to make them lower the prices, but they don't listen to her.

 

Yep it is pricey.

You say Gurumayi has mentioned that SYDA does it's own thing and she tried to make them lower their prices but they don't listen to her.

Did you actually hear Gurumayi say this?

There are a lot of people who tell us what they think the Guru means or what they would like to believe.

I used to play tai chi in the ashram and I was told by some idiot that Muktananda didn't like people doing

other things like tai chi. well it was completely a fiction in this persons mind.

Muktananda was SYDA - Gurumayi is SYDA. The trustees are there for tax exempt purposes.

[goldisheavy]

Well, neither Muktananda nor Sogyal Rinpoche were proven in the court of law to be as such either. I'll remove the name though.

 

It's going to be:

 

1. He said, she said.

 

2. He says, "It was consensual." Now, try to prove otherwise.

 

If the rape is a violent kind and the woman takes pictures and collects evidence, there is a good chance to prove it in court. If it's not a violent kind, then good luck trying to prove it. No bruises? No dating drugs in the bloodstream? You're reporting it 5 years after it happened? Good luck with that.

 

Thing is, the allegations can be completely true, but the chances of them standing up in court are almost zero.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yep it is pricey.

You say Gurumayi has mentioned that SYDA does it's own thing and she tried to make them lower their prices but they don't listen to her.

Did you actually hear Gurumayi say this?

 

 

Yup, in person to a small group of Ashram staff, which I was a part of.

 

There are a lot of people who tell us what they think the Guru means or what they would like to believe.

I used to play tai chi in the ashram and I was told by some idiot that Muktananda didn't like people doing

other things like tai chi. well it was completely a fiction in this persons mind.

Muktananda was SYDA - Gurumayi is SYDA. The trustees are there for tax exempt purposes.

 

Yeah, that's BS actually. I've seen plenty of people do Tai Chi at the Ashram and there are so many devotees that do all sorts of other things that aren't, "Siddha Yoga" but the whole teaching is about making everything Siddha Yoga. There is nothing that is not Siddha Yoga if your perspective is clear, everything is Shiva. Everything is union with the most high from this philosophies perspective, it's just a spectrum of which is most connected to the core of all being or what is on the fringe, as in virtue (connected) versus vice (disconnected).

 

SYDA is not just for tax exemptions. It has it's own president, they make their own decisions about money allocation within the world organization. I've known one of the presidents. They do tons of things without the Guru's consent. Gurumayi even expressed disappointment about the building of Lake Nityananda during her time in India. She came back and said, "this is unnatural, this is not good for the natural ecosystem of the area." I was there when she said this as well. I could go on pretty endlessly. I could write a book actually. I might eventually. I only know people on a personal level who's lives were turned right side up by the path, including my Mom. My Mom considers most of this stuff in the LSY site just tabloid junk. She doesn't know what to think about whether or not Muktananda had sex in his later years for tantric purposes. I know he did as I've talked to people really close as stated in various posts above. But, the raping and the molesting? No. I have found no verification for this. It has never been proven in the court of law either.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

It's going to be:

 

1. He said, she said.

 

2. He says, "It was consensual." Now, try to prove otherwise.

 

If the rape is a violent kind and the woman takes pictures and collects evidence, there is a good chance to prove it in court. If it's not a violent kind, then good luck trying to prove it. No bruises? No dating drugs in the bloodstream? You're reporting it 5 years after it happened? Good luck with that.

 

Thing is, the allegations can be completely true, but the chances of them standing up in court are almost zero.

 

Yes, that's true. It'd be sad if it was true that this happened, but I'm not at all convinced. Getting out of court settlement money is a huge incentive for human plants into fringe (to the Western eye) not for profit organizations, etc. There are stories of this. At the same time, there are plenty of true stories about rape and molestation from religious organizations as well. Sadly, it's not cut and dry, it's a mixed bag of true and false allegations, as well as things taken out of context and re-contextualized in a way to make it sound wicked when it wasn't.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Yep it is pricey.

 

Not as pricey as Wang Liping apparently and plenty of others.

 

I really like that my Rinpoche does much of his stuff for free, or on a sliding scale, or for very cheap in comparison to others. I think it's the Buddhist philosophy that allows for this though. As all the highly realized Rinpoche's that I'm into do this. I've personally never been into Sogyal, but there is a deeper view of Karma in Buddhism. The problem I have with theism is the idea that God as the first cause, is the originator of all beings' karmas, the initiator of the domino effect, which leads to many emotional and intellectual excuses for ignorance about causation in my opinion.

 

"Oh, it's gods will that they're poor."

 

"Oh, it's filled with bliss, so it must be gods will that I do this."

Edited July 26, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

So I think the woman was correct after all. Samayas are secret or otherwise not well known, so how is she supposed to know about that? And her observation about the general Tibetan culture is correct I believe.

 

I got the impression she was married to Stephen B. who practices vajrayana - so she would know about samaya vows. I think the interesting thing about the 14 Root Downfalls while we're on the subject is that they do include 'not denigrating women'. Clearly whoever it was that formulated them realised that denigrating women was a problem, either culturally or personally and that people specifically had to be told 'don't do that if you want to be a good tantrika.' So I think she was spot on about the culture ... and I suppose it makes whatever Soggy gets up to even worse ... since he was a member of an 'elite' who had spefically agreed not to do these things. Mind you as you say in his own mind he probably thought he was doing them a favour.

 

Even if she knows about samaya, it is still a reasonable thing to believe that the culture is weightier than the samaya. Your culture was put there by generations of people, friends and family, and from a Buddhist POV it's fixed firmly by countless past lives. Samaya is a relatively arbitrary decision on your part that is not as stable and as weighty as the basic culture. Samaya is more superficial than the basic cultural assumptions. That's why it takes vigilance and willpower to keep samaya, because it's not normal.

 

Yes, see above.

 

 

 

I agree. That's how it works in theory. In practice what happens is that there is a famous lama and you've only heard good things about the lama (saying bad things about the lama breaks samaya). The lama says you're special, which is exactly what you wanted to hear all along. One thing leads to another, and by the time you realize what happened the deed is done, as they say.

 

Authority is a powerful drug. To deny that would be senseless and a denial of our own nature, as you'd probably agree.

 

Like everything there's good lamas and not so good ones. I have to say that SG's reputation amongst the Buddhist circles I mixed in a few years ago was not good. He was considered 'confused' and other lamas said this openly. I also never came across this total lama worship although the samaya vows were taught and emphasised along with the 5,000 verses of guru-yoga. The view seemed to be that you developed a relationship of trust (love even) over a long period of time with your lama ... ok they sat on high thrones to teach but in a one to one situation they were gentle, kind and tolerant and never put any pressure on (apart from urging you to practice). Maybe I was lucky.

 

I think if there is any of this ... "you are special" stuff then that is pure manipulation and very un-dharmic if I can coin that phrase. But I still go back to the fact that I don't really care.

 

I used to go and see these guys teach ... and for me it was more a question of what they knew and what they could impart. I wasn't ever interested in a god to worship or a saviour ... maybe that's just me.

[Vajrahridaya]

Like everything there's good lamas and not so good ones. I have to say that SG's reputation amongst the Buddhist circles I mixed in a few years ago was not good. He was considered 'confused' and other lamas said this openly. I also never came across this total lama worship although the samaya vows were taught and emphasised along with the 5,000 verses of guru-yoga. The view seemed to be that you developed a relationship of trust (love even) over a long period of time with your lama ... ok they sat on high thrones to teach but in a one to one situation they were gentle, kind and tolerant and never put any pressure on (apart from urging you to practice). Maybe I was lucky.

 

I think if there is any of this ... "you are special" stuff then that is pure manipulation and very un-dharmic if I can coin that phrase. But I still go back to the fact that I don't really care.

 

I used to go and see these guys teach ... and for me it was more a question of what they knew and what they could impart. I wasn't ever interested in a god to worship or a saviour ... maybe that's just me.

 

Yes, exactly... and the highlighted is why I prefer Buddhist philosophy over Monistic Idealism or Monotheism of any sort, due to this subtle tendency to deify a "saint" and think that everything they do is somehow, "gods will!". A huge mistake in understanding reality and human potential in general in my opinion.

[mYTHmAKER]

Not as pricey as Wang Liping apparently and plenty of others.

 

I really like that my Rinpoche does much of his stuff for free, or on a sliding scale, or for very cheap in comparison to others. I think it's the Buddhist philosophy that allows for this though. As all the highly realized Rinpoche's that I'm into do this. I've personally never been into Sogyal, but there is a deeper view of Karma in Buddhism. The problem I have with theism is the idea that God as the first cause, is the originator of all beings' karmas, the initiator of the domino effect, which leads to many emotional and intellectual excuses for ignorance about causation in my opinion.

 

"Oh, it's gods will that they're poor."

 

"Oh, it's filled with bliss, so it must be gods will that I do this."

 

You are the one who made the original pricey statement.

i was agreeing with you.

now you sound like you are defending the price by stating it's not as pricey as Wang Liping and others LOL

 

Glad you found your path

Edited July 26, 2011 by mYTHmAKER

[Vajrahridaya]

You are the one who made the original pricey statement.

i was agreeing with you.

now you sound like you are defending the price by stating it's not as pricey as Wang Liping and others LOL

 

I know, I'm just stating other facts. I'm not a black and white thinker. Everything is relative.

[mYTHmAKER]

Yup, in person to a small group of Ashram staff, which I was a part of.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's BS actually. I've seen plenty of people do Tai Chi at the Ashram and there are so many devotees that do all sorts of other things that aren't, "Siddha Yoga" but the whole teaching is about making everything Siddha Yoga. There is nothing that is not Siddha Yoga if your perspective is clear, everything is Shiva. Everything is union with the most high from this philosophies perspective, it's just a spectrum of which is most connected to the core of all being or what is on the fringe, as in virtue (connected) versus vice (disconnected).

 

SYDA is not just for tax exemptions. It has it's own president, they make their own decisions about money allocation within the world organization. I've known one of the presidents. They do tons of things without the Guru's consent. Gurumayi even expressed disappointment about the building of Lake Nityananda during her time in India. She came back and said, "this is unnatural, this is not good for the natural ecosystem of the area." I was there when she said this as well. I could go on pretty endlessly. I could write a book actually. I might eventually. I only know people on a personal level who's lives were turned right side up by the path, including my Mom. My Mom considers most of this stuff in the LSY site just tabloid junk. She doesn't know what to think about whether or not Muktananda had sex in his later years for tantric purposes. I know he did as I've talked to people really close as stated in various posts above. But, the raping and the molesting? No. I have found no verification for this. It has never been proven in the court of law either.

 

I am surprised by Gurumayi not having control.

I will check this out with some people i know.

I was around when you were very young

Not to brag but i also know a SYDA pres.

Ok so you do agree he had sex with young girls and i will agree most likely for tantric purposes as he excluded mature women. The girls may have 'consented' as evey one wanted his shakti. He was a siddha so he had influence and control over people. When a person has control over a miner and has sex with them it is considered rape and molestation in the USA. Of course some of them wanted to have sex with him - it is still considered rape and molestation.

Pendragon is probably off the wall and Daniel Shaw is on a crusade but this doesn't change any of the facts.

[goldisheavy]

I agree that if someone claims to be a representative of a theistic God, the potential for abuse is greater than in the Buddhist environment where people are considered wise or even enlightened, but then, anyone can be wise or enlightened, so it's not an exclusive and all-powerful thing like with God. For me that's one of the top reasons I reject God as well.

 

The top reason is that God with an independent will and being is illogical (unless God is a being among beings, but then God is not a theistic God anymore, but merely someone like Mars/Jupiter or a Deva in Hinduism).

 

Still, even in Buddhism, especially when it comes to the cliquish secret clubs, the potential for abuse is there. And it's a good thing to be educated.

Edited July 26, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

Yes, exactly... and the highlighted is why I prefer Buddhist philosophy over Monistic Idealism or Monotheism of any sort, due to this subtle tendency to deify a "saint" and think that everything they do is somehow, "gods will!". A huge mistake in understanding reality and human potential in general in my opinion.

 

I went to see Namkhai Norbu give a talk in London in 1979 (this is another of my lama stories). My friend came round and said that there was this talk on Dzogchen somewhere maybe Camden and so we drove across London and sat ina hall with maybe 200 people. He appeared with three or four Italians on stage (he was at Milan or Turin university a the time I think) - one of them was enormously overweight. They all wore little mirrors as pendants and this was part of talk.

 

His talk was ok but quite Buddha-lite if you know what I mean - just basic four noble truths and a few funny stories (told in Italian and translated for us). They said that they had been somewhere and a guy had come up to them and assumed that the big fellow must be the lama because he was so large. That raised a laugh.

 

At the end of the talk there was questions from the floor. My friend who I went with leaps to his feet and waves his arm. He wasn't the shy retiring type like me. Then he says in a loud voice (there was no mike): "Me and my friend," (points at me),"drove all the way across London and gave up an evening to come to a talk on Dzogchen. So far you haven't mentioned it at all. Maybe you could say something now so we haven't completely wasted our time."

 

Needless to say every one of about 200 people turned to stare at us and I quietly willed a trap door to open under me so I could sink out of their gaze. There was a lot of tutting and gasping going on. Meanwhile the translator told the Lama the question,

 

He replied, "I'm not going to talk about Dzogchen if I don't want to. If you have wasted your time then that's your problem."

 

It always stuck in my mind as a great answer - probably because I expected a long boring blah blah about secret doctrines not this kind of 'tough shit' response.

 

(Thank you for listening ... please carry on)

[Vajrahridaya]

Glad you found your path

 

Thank you. Siddha Yoga was definitely part of my process. The amount of discipline and inner fortitude I found, the amount of inner experiences transcending the popular norm of accepted human potential I found through following the Ashram schedule every single day for years from the morning Arati all the way through to the evening chant, taking as many intensives as I could before the age of 24 when everything was half price back when things were cheaper to begin with, was some of the most amazing times in my life. Including the many wonderful people I met at the upstate NY and Oakland Ashram. Seriously! I would not trade it for the world. Reading not only all the publications both rare and well known, as well as the Darshan Magazines also gave me access to so many other spiritual traditions as they would take stories from all the worlds traditions and mystics in the Darshan Magazines; from Taoism, to Christian mysticism, to Sufism, Kabbalah, to Buddhism and Hinduism as well as Native Shaman stories. I met people into Shamanism, got Reiki attuned, met people into astrology, met people into massage, had really wonderful relationships with some women in Siddha Yoga when I wasn't doing the celibacy thing, and I mean really powerful relationships... stellar! Not just the sex, LOL! But yes... the sex too, top notch tantric style. These people definitely have kundalini awakening and are wonderful spiritual beings.

[Vajrahridaya]

I went to see Namkhai Norbu give a talk in London in 1979 (this is another of my lama stories). My friend came round and said that there was this talk on Dzogchen somewhere maybe Camden and so we drove across London and sat ina hall with maybe 200 people. He appeared with three or four Italians on stage (he was at Milan or Turin university a the time I think) - one of them was enormously overweight. They all wore little mirrors as pendants and this was part of talk.

 

His talk was ok but quite Buddha-lite if you know what I mean - just basic four noble truths and a few funny stories (told in Italian and translated for us). They said that they had been somewhere and a guy had come up to them and assumed that the big fellow must be the lama because he was so large. That raised a laugh.

 

At the end of the talk there was questions from the floor. My friend who I went with leaps to his feet and waves his arm. He wasn't the shy retiring type like me. Then he says in a loud voice (there was no mike): "Me and my friend," (points at me),"drove all the way across London and gave up an evening to come to a talk on Dzogchen. So far you haven't mentioned it at all. Maybe you could say something now so we haven't completely wasted our time."

 

Needless to say every one of about 200 people turned to stare at us and I quietly willed a trap door to open under me so I could sink out of their gaze. There was a lot of tutting and gasping going on. Meanwhile the translator told the Lama the question,

 

He replied, "I'm not going to talk about Dzogchen if I don't want to. If you have wasted your time then that's your problem."

 

It always stuck in my mind as a great answer - probably because I expected a long boring blah blah about secret doctrines not this kind of 'tough shit' response.

 

(Thank you for listening ... please carry on)

 

Wow, 1979? LOL! He was actually quite thin back then, skinny even.

 

Yeah, I don't think he's much into giving Buddha-lite talks anymore. He's pretty nitty gritty now and getting more so in his books too. Of course, he's got lots of books published that one can't get access to without various transmissions. But, his precious vase SMS base book for the first part Santi Maha Sangha study course, is already sutra style nitty gritty and he's had that out for a long time.

 

I like his no bull shit style of teaching though too. He doesn't do the pretense, melodramatic thing, which is great!

[Vajrahridaya]

I agree that if someone claims to be a representative of a theistic God, the potential for abuse is greater than in the Buddhist environment where people are considered wise or even enlightened, but then, anyone can be wise or enlightened, so it's not an exclusive and all-powerful thing like with God. For me that's one of the top reasons I reject God as well.

 

The top reason is that God with an independent will and being is illogical (unless God is a being among beings, but then God is not a theistic God anymore, but merely someone like Mars/Jupiter or a Deva in Hinduism).

 

Still, even in Buddhism, especially when it comes to the cliquish secret clubs, the potential for abuse is there. And it's a good thing to be educated.

 

I agree.

 

The potential for non-abuse in theistic spiritual traditions that have more of an imminent concept of god as well as transcendent are a good step in the right direction. Like in Hinduism for instance. But still... yeah.

[Aaron]

I said this elsewhere and it wasn't very well accepted, but I will say it here because I think it needs to be said. In any religion, when you have certain people who have authority over others, then there is always a chance for an abuse of power. Whether its a Catholic priest molesting children during confession or a Buddhist monk molesting children in a monastery. The problem is that man is fallible and subject to impulses and cravings. When you have institutions that require celibacy, more often than not you find two things, first that the people drawn to those institutions tend to be drawn because they feel it will remove some deviant craving of their own, and second that people will tend to give in to more base impulses because they have no outlet for these base desires. In other words a Priest or Monk who really is not a pedophile or rapist, will have something that occurs in their life that causes them to act out because they have reduced impulse control. Once they act out it becomes easier to do it a second time and third and so on, until it becomes an ingrained behavior for them.

 

Now with that said, I think the VAST majority of people in these institutions are good decent people who have the best interests of their congregation in mind, it is only the very small minority that act out in a way that harms others. The problem is that when it happens, it is shocking, and such an abuse of power, that we focus on it to the extent that it becomes a greater issue than it actually is. For instance thousands of children were molested by Catholic Priests, but what we forget is that several million children actually were never molested. Yes it's important to address the charges and care for the victim, but one can't take an incident like that and suddenly label everyone involved in the institution as being corrupt.

 

Religions are not necessarily corrupt, rather the people involved in religions can become corrupt. Of course I also don't advocate blind faith, but that's an entirely different topic for discussion.

 

Aaron

Edited July 26, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes Aaron, exactly. I don't see how this statement could be taken wrongly?

[goldisheavy]

I agree.

 

The potential for non-abuse in theistic spiritual traditions that have more of an imminent concept of god as well as transcendent are a good step in the right direction. Like in Hinduism for instance. But still... yeah.

 

Yea, I have much fewer problems with a conception of God being immanent (I think that's what you meant instead of "imminent"). It's much less manipulative. Then everyone knows they have equal access to God and there is much less potential for someone to claim an exclusive access and then say, "Since I have exclusive access to God, everyone of you better start to follow myGod's instructions, or else!!"

[Vajrahridaya]

Yea, I have much fewer problems with a conception of God being immanent (I think that's what you meant instead of "imminent"). It's much less manipulative. Then everyone knows they have equal access to God and there is much less potential for someone to claim an exclusive access and then say, "Since I have exclusive access to God, everyone of you better start to follow myGod's instructions, or else!!"

 

 

Right!

 

I had a feeling spell check was doing that word wrong. Eh, English... such a feisty bastard!

[Apech]

Right!

 

I had a feeling spell check was doing that word wrong. Eh, English... such a feisty bastard!

 

Well at least we don't speak a language called American .

 

I think a case could be made for religions as vehicles for holding and preserving ideas through generations. In the west at any rate there have been individual mystics through history who reinterpret Christianity in a very individualist way and sort of make sense of it. Blake, Boehme and Bruno come to mind (why do they all begin with B???). Would they have been able to do this if there was no orthodox church?