Are all the religions equally corrupt?

[suninmyeyes]

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?

mytHMAker, am I assuming right that you are asking a question regarding sexual abuse to Vaj?(although you have quoted me)

It is true what you say about priests,so much nonsense going on.

Someone I know of was following this guy ,who was caught with a woman on the tape and that swami still kind of denies that anything happened

All this kind of stuff needs to come to light and be seen for what it is. There all kind stalenss within religions and spiritual organisations.

 

Just remebered incident about 14 years ago me and my friends squatted this ex Buddhist place in London (where all the monks used to stay ) and moved in.Every room in the house had Japonese porn mags . So many of them. We were cracking up as those guys were meant to be celibate plus the mags were funny too.

OK guys had some fun I dont care but it is the false pretenses that bother me.

I guess what I am trying to say here is to say that anything is possible and it is good to take inspiration from everywhere. But pick and choose ,as people are people everywhere.

Edited July 26, 2011 by suninmyeyes

[goldisheavy]

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?

 

Apech,

 

I hope you are joking. Of course they'd be able to do it. I would argue that it's precisely the dogmatic and dittohead-ish nature of organized religion that kept many mystics at arm's length in many parts of the world. Traditional religious orthodoxies and bureaucracies were very hostile to the mystics and at best tolerated them. Didn't Meister Eckhart get excommunicated? I think Eckhart got lucky he wasn't burned at the stake. What would happen to a mystic who says "I am the Truth" in an Islamic country? Just ask al-Hallaj.

 

Screw everything about organized religion. I have put all the biggest organized religions on a demolition track and I am not bringing them back from the dead. Not all religions are as oppressive as Christianity and Islam, but I think we all know that the process itself is dangerous and not just the content. Content does make a big difference, but the process of organized religion is a dangerous and unhelpful one.

 

I think people do need spirituality, which is to say, people need wisdom and teachings that go beyond the apparently physical existence. But there should be a way to make these teachings accessible to everyone without the strangulation of organized religion.

Edited July 26, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

mytHMAker, am I assuming right that you are asking a question regarding sexual abuse to Vaj?(although you have quoted me)

It is true what you say about priests,so much nonsense going on.

Someone I know of was following this guy ,who was caught with a woman on the tape and that swami still kind of denies that anything happened

All this kind of stuff needs to come to light and be seen for what it is. There all kind stalenss within religions and spiritual organisations.

 

Just remebered incident about 14 years ago me and my friends squatted this ex Buddhist place in London (where all the monks used to stay ) and moved in.Every room in the house had Japonese porn mags . So many of them. We were cracking up as those guys were meant to be celibate plus the mags were funny too.

OK guys had some fun I dont care but it is the false pretenses that bother me.

I guess what I am trying to say here is to say that anything is possible and it is good to take inspiration from everywhere. But pick and choose ,as people are people everywhere.

 

Well said, but it's more than just "staleness." Organized religion is more or less on a war path against human nature. They deny sexual instinct. They demonize it. They perpetuate all kinds of myths and superstitions about sex, including the so-called "Daoists" who claim that ejaculating means losing energy and so on. It's very unhealthy.

 

This is where a lot of the misery comes from. It's dogma + dittoheads + crazy and misguided ideas. If there was one dogmatic person that no one cared about, that person would be relatively harmless. But if this dogmatic person is surrounded by 100,000 dittoheads who all go, "Yes, yes, yes, whatever you say we all believe every word all the time no matter what, yes, yes, yes." Then you have a dittohead army of 100k people, brainwashed and ready for deployment at your merest word. This is the situation that becomes dangerous. Now infuse dogma with false and harmful ideas, combine with dittoheads, and boom, you have huge social problems all over the place, up to and including violence. Violence against people of other religions and violence against people of your own religion (to keep them in line). Verbal violence and physical. Etc. Nasty stuff.

Edited July 26, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

Apech,

 

I hope you are joking. Of course they'd be able to do it. I would argue that it's precisely the dogmatic and dittohead-ish nature of organized religion that kept many mystics at arm's length in many parts of the world. Traditional religious orthodoxies and bureaucracies were very hostile to the mystics and at best tolerated them. Didn't Meister Eckhart get excommunicated? I think Eckhart got lucky he wasn't burned at the stake. What would happen to a mystic who says "I am the Truth" in an Islamic country? Just ask al-Hallaj.

 

Screw everything about organized religion. I have put all the biggest organized religions on a demolition track and I am not bringing them back from the dead. Not all religions are as oppressive as Christianity and Islam, but I think we all know that the process itself is dangerous and not just the content. Content does make a big difference, but the process of organized religion is a dangerous and unhelpful one.

 

I think people do need spirituality, which is to say, people need wisdom and teachings that go beyond the apparently physical existence. But there should be a way to make these teachings accessible to everyone without the strangulation of organized religion.

 

No I wasn't joking exactly just thinking out loud. Bruno was burned at the stake and I am sure many recanted simply because it was more ecominical to carry on in secret than to make a big statement by dieing. I know its a different field but look at Gallileo he recanted ... but was still right in the long run.

 

No what i meant was that they (mostly) still used the terminology of the Judeo-Christian tradition ... the Godhead, Christ the logos and so on. Jesus himself seemed an ok bloke ... shame about the cross and all that. So running in secret behind the orthodox is a mystical tradition. The question is would this be possible if there was no orthodoxy.

[Vajrahridaya]

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?

 

..........

 

No I wasn't joking exactly just thinking out loud. Bruno was burned at the stake and I am sure many recanted simply because it was more ecominical to carry on in secret than to make a big statement by dieing. I know its a different field but look at Gallileo he recanted ... but was still right in the long run.

 

No what i meant was that they (mostly) still used the terminology of the Judeo-Christian tradition ... the Godhead, Christ the logos and so on. Jesus himself seemed an ok bloke ... shame about the cross and all that. So running in secret behind the orthodox is a mystical tradition. The question is would this be possible if there was no orthodoxy.

 

 

 

It does appear to serve some positive purpose, yes.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Birch]

No I wasn't joking exactly just thinking out loud. Bruno was burned at the stake and I am sure many recanted simply because it was more ecominical to carry on in secret than to make a big statement by dieing. I know its a different field but look at Gallileo he recanted ... but was still right in the long run.

 

No what i meant was that they (mostly) still used the terminology of the Judeo-Christian tradition ... the Godhead, Christ the logos and so on. Jesus himself seemed an ok bloke ... shame about the cross and all that. So running in secret behind the orthodox is a mystical tradition. The question is would this be possible if there was no orthodoxy.

 

"The question is would this be possible if there was no orthodoxy"

 

I think they (mystic setups) quite consistently run behind most of them too. Whether this would be possible without is in interesting question. But what I can't get my head around is the co-existence of both in the same society. I think it has to do with social/political power. But why the mystics would condone that purpose, I'm not quite sure, yet. I think it's possible for mystics to make mistakes...but is it possible for 'mystery' to make mistakes?

[Vajrahridaya]

I think it's possible for mystics to make mistakes...but is it possible for 'mystery' to make mistakes?

 

Dive into the mystery and find out.

[Apech]

"The question is would this be possible if there was no orthodoxy"

 

I think they (mystic setups) quite consistently run behind most of them too. Whether this would be possible without is in interesting question. But what I can't get my head around is the co-existence of both in the same society. I think it has to do with social/political power. But why the mystics would condone that purpose, I'm not quite sure, yet. I think it's possible for mystics to make mistakes...but is it possible for 'mystery' to make mistakes?

 

What a brilliant question! Vaj says dive in and find out ... well presumably the persecuted mystics did just that. Going back to Big J ... why didn't he save himself (assuming he was enlightened) - Pontius Pilot asked him "What is truth" and he didn't answer.

 

Sorry I am rambling. I'll come back when I have thought a bit more.

[C T]

What a brilliant question! Vaj says dive in and find out ... well presumably the persecuted mystics did just that. Going back to Big J ... why didn't he save himself (assuming he was enlightened) - Pontius Pilot asked him "What is truth" and he didn't answer.

 

Sorry I am rambling. I'll come back when I have thought a bit more.

May i give a theory as to why Mr J did not save himself?

 

Well, for a start, he had contemplated on the matter, and decided to leave the decision to his Father.

("If it be thy will, let this cup be removed.... " - not sure if i am quoting accurately)

 

The way i see it, his death/resurrection is symbolic of the need to kill the ego (since ego's effects manifest bodily) before 'pureness of spirit' can be evolved. His resurrection then points to ultimate mastery over both extremes, that of life and death. He achieved the pinnacle of the spiritual path.. the deathless nature, or Parinirvana, for want of a more familiar term.

 

Doing so, he showed others the way to remove 'the yoke' - I think this 'yoke' references the ego. This was pointed out in Gal. 5:1 - "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, and do not let yourselves again be burdened again by the yoke of slavery."

 

One Christian scholar commented: "Christ has set us free from the yoke of bondage through the Law. Jesus took upon himself the yoke of law and fulfilled it. Therefore, through him we can be set free from the yoke of sin and death."

 

That's how i see it anyway.

[Birch]

"is symbolic of the need to kill the ego"

 

Yeah I'd seen some similarities there too. But I'm still not convinced about this 'ego-killing' thing. Isn't realising what it is easier?

I guess I just don't 'get' why so many of these references are so harsh towards peopling.

[Vajrahridaya]

"is symbolic of the need to kill the ego"

 

Yeah I'd seen some similarities there too. But I'm still not convinced about this 'ego-killing' thing. Isn't realising what it is easier?

I guess I just don't 'get' why so many of these references are so harsh towards peopling.

 

I've always been a fan of having a good strong ego, but in a way that see's through itself. I don't see that killing the ego is what one wants to do, but rather killing the clinginess of the mind. Having a good ego, that feels good about itself, but see's itself as a relative existent and not narcissistic would be good I think. I think that people with neurotic tendencies arising from a bruised ego often use spirituality to transcend life or escape from it, instead of learning how to be here with it from a more optimum capacity. Even though a little escapism can be good if you utilize the time for deep contemplation, like what Buddhist masters do during private retreat.

 

For me -K- It's exactly as you've stated it... to see what the go is, not to kill it, but to see through it as a transparent entity to oneself. Even if others can't see through your ego, you know what it is and can see through it.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Aaron]

I think the term "Killing the ego" is misleading, because even after you have "killed the ego" all you really recognize is that the ego is not there to begin with, that it is just something that you are conditioned to accept. Now the problem is that we are all creatures of the body, so as long as we reside in this body we will have an ego, thus saying you are killing the ego isn't true, rather you are killing the illusion of who you are.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

I've always been a fan of having a good strong ego, but in a way that see's through itself. I don't see that killing the ego is what one wants to do, but rather killing the clinginess of the mind. Having a good ego, that feels good about itself, but see's itself as a relative existent and not narcissistic would be good I think. I think that people with neurotic tendencies arising from a bruised ego often use spirituality to transcend life or escape from it, instead of learning how to be here with it from a more optimum capacity. Even though a little escapism can be good if you utilize the time for deep contemplation, like what Buddhist masters do during private retreat.

 

For me -K- It's exactly as you've stated it... to see what the go is, not to kill it, but to see through it as a transparent entity to oneself. Even if others can't see through your ego, you know what it is and can see through it.

 

Maybe. Especially since it appears it can also fake it's own death in an attempt to persist in conformity under a different semantic flag in response to authoritative religious impulses. Or run up to respond to flattery in a futile attempt at tail wagging. Weird that, eh?

 

Susan suggested something along the lines of 'forget about it'. I think that works. I also like the -ing suffix. It does seem to hop over the semantic trap. But I could be wronging as usualing.

[goldisheavy]

No I wasn't joking exactly just thinking out loud. Bruno was burned at the stake and I am sure many recanted simply because it was more ecominical to carry on in secret than to make a big statement by dieing. I know its a different field but look at Gallileo he recanted ... but was still right in the long run.

 

No what i meant was that they (mostly) still used the terminology of the Judeo-Christian tradition ... the Godhead, Christ the logos and so on. Jesus himself seemed an ok bloke ... shame about the cross and all that. So running in secret behind the orthodox is a mystical tradition. The question is would this be possible if there was no orthodoxy.

 

In a sense to run behind something in secret you need an oppressive something to run behind.

 

However, if being a mystic just means living the experience of spiritual union and wisdom, then of course it would be possible without the big organized religion. Not only would it be possible, but it would be easier to breathe without the organized religion.

 

It all depends on your goals in life. If your goal is to sneak around in secret, then it helps to have a good legitimate reason for that sneaking around, such as the climate of persecution. If your goal is to nurture wisdom and to open yourself to new and strange experiences then you don't need an organization that's bent on persecution.

 

EDIT: Oh, I think part of your question is: do the mystics need religious vocabulary to lean on? My answer is no, they do not. Mystics can "mystify" any language, and the social structure of organized religion is not necessary to produce spiritually useful terms and meanings. I would even go further. I would say that if you don't have your own vocabulary you're not a real mystic to begin with. It's important to have a shared vocabulary to talk to others, but it's also important to have your own vocabulary to talk to yourself in the terms that are most relevant to you. A mystic who appears on Earth is someone who has one foot in convention and one foot beyond convention.

Edited July 28, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

<snip>

 

It all depends on your goals in life. If your goal is to sneak around in secret, then it helps to have a good legitimate reason for that sneaking around, such as the climate of persecution. If your goal is to nurture wisdom and to open yourself to new and strange experiences then you don't need an organization that's bent on persecution.

 

EDIT: Oh, I think part of your question is: do the mystics need religious vocabulary to lean on? My answer is no, they do not. Mystics can "mystify" any language, and the social structure of organized religion is not necessary to produce spiritually useful terms and meanings. I would even go further. I would say that if you don't have your own vocabulary you're not a real mystic to begin with. It's important to have a shared vocabulary to talk to others, but it's also important to have your own vocabulary to talk to yourself in the terms that are most relevant to you. A mystic who appears on Earth is someone who has one foot in convention and one foot beyond convention.

 

I think I half agree with you and half disagree.

 

I'll give another historical example which will not please Vaj. (). In the lineage of Karma Kagyu Tib. Buddhism the stated role of (the saintly) Gampopa who was himself a student of Milarepa, was to merge the monastic tradition which was started by Atisha with the line if the siddhas (i.e Nilopa, Tilopa, Marpa, Milarepa ....). To me these are two classes of tradition. One orthodox Buddhism the other a line of mystics. While the second clearly saw themselves as being buddhists they were not monks and their activity was outside the 'normal' teachings - as the life of Gampopa illustrates.

 

So its it possible to do what Gampopa is said to have done? Can genuine mysticism which is individual and spontaneously revelatory sit inside an organised orthodox system? If no ... then what purpose if any did Gampopa serve in establishing (through his successor Karmapa) the lineage? In other words can it be a comfortable home for a mystic or is there always a compromise in which the mystic will always either to have to break out ... or keep silent?

 

The other way to look at it is ... to be properly individual you need something to kick at. This would give a kind of negative purpose to dogma.

 

Lastly ... K's point ... if I understood it ... if the mystic dwells in truth and reality (the mystery) is truth ... then how can it be oppressed by lies anyway?

[Birch]

"Lastly ... K's point ... if I understood it ... if the mystic dwells in truth and reality (the mystery) is truth ... then how can it be oppressed by lies anyway? "

 

I still don't know. But IMO if you're a mystic then unless you're grounded in the world doing something, the risks could be quite real that you'll end up on the coat-tails and under the thumb of some seriously twisted individuals. I know, I don't seem to have a great opinion of mystics. Maybe it wasn't always that way.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think I half agree with you and half disagree.

 

I'll give another historical example which will not please Vaj. (). In the lineage of Karma Kagyu Tib. Buddhism the stated role of (the saintly) Gampopa who was himself a student of Milarepa, was to merge the monastic tradition which was started by Atisha with the line if the siddhas (i.e Nilopa, Tilopa, Marpa, Milarepa ....). To me these are two classes of tradition. One orthodox Buddhism the other a line of mystics. While the second clearly saw themselves as being buddhists they were not monks and their activity was outside the 'normal' teachings - as the life of Gampopa illustrates.

 

So its it possible to do what Gampopa is said to have done? Can genuine mysticism which is individual and spontaneously revelatory sit inside an organised orthodox system? If no ... then what purpose if any did Gampopa serve in establishing (through his successor Karmapa) the lineage? In other words can it be a comfortable home for a mystic or is there always a compromise in which the mystic will always either to have to break out ... or keep silent?

 

The other way to look at it is ... to be properly individual you need something to kick at. This would give a kind of negative purpose to dogma.

 

Lastly ... K's point ... if I understood it ... if the mystic dwells in truth and reality (the mystery) is truth ... then how can it be oppressed by lies anyway?

 

Why would I not be pleased? I think it's individual, there are mystics inside and outside of the monastery. The fact arisen dependent upon personal inclinations.