Being Different

[Jetsun]

I just wanted to point out that this topic seems to be a consensus of people that agree that the western view is inferior to the eastern view and that in order for westerners to realize their full potential they must understand how that's wrong and begin to think like Easterners.

 

I think the genuine masters understand that it requires skillful means to transfer a teaching from one culture to another, just jumping in and trying to become Eastern most probably will result in confusion. George Gurdjieff said what is needed is to unite the energy of the West with the wisdom of the East and he tried to take a lot of Eastern wisdom and formulate it scientifically to appeal to the Western mind, as just trying to shoehorn in a tradition from a culturally different land would most probably would end in failure.

 

Our minds are far more rational and scientific than when most of the wisdom traditions were created so it is more realistic to try to find teachers who have adapted the teaching to our minds rather than try to change our minds to the teaching, many Tibetan Lams's have realised this and now are writing books far more stripped down of cultural baggage and adapt their teachings to the more modern outlook, people like the Dalai Lama regularly quote scientific studies in their teachings these days for example.

 

Lama Yeshe writes about the difference between Western and Eastern students in some of his books and says when he first came to teach in the West he found it very difficult as all the Western students would question and try to understand every little aspect of the teaching from the beginning, while his Eastern ones would take it all on faith and try to understand later after much practice, but he says that now he actually prefers his Western students outlook even though it causes him more stress as questioning everything and looking for proof rather than taking things on faith can be a healthier spiritual attitude.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

let's jsut set aside our differences and see about trying them on before critically thinking about them without first hand experience

 

 

 

k' so i'm really not sure where to go with this one. i've always considered everyone and everything is different, unique, and requires an equally unique approach to observing and/or evaluating (if "necessary"), since any other approach would be... inherently obstructive of the individual person, place, or thing... (which i tend to opt as all being interchangable; all persons are places made up of things, all things are persons made up of places, all places are things made up of persons... etc.)

[Informer]

Like a Jehovah Witness is not that much different than a Bodhicitta.

 

Bodhicitta also means the aim to, on the one hand, bring happiness to all sentient beings, and on the other, to relieve them of suffering;[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhicitta

 

the establishment of God's kingdom on earth is the only solution for all problems faced by humankind.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

 

I mean they are both intending to make the earth better, yet for different reasons.

[Aaron]

Actually all this book is trying to do is show that the overwhelming need for uniformity (and conformity) in the Western system is incompatible with study of eastern traditions (especially esoterica).

 

 

 

And each is fine in its own context. Taken out of context, we have confusion and contradictions.

 

 

 

Is it? Have you read the book? In fact the book is trying to emphasize that we need to celebrate the differences (which are obvious) and not try to whitewash everything to look the same. It is also calling for mutual respect between various traditions of the world (as opposed to tolerance, which a superior concedes towards an inferior).

 

It is trying to identify the differences between the dharmic and the abrahamic systems (and their approach to spirituality) and it would serve a western seeker well to be aware of these differences (and see if they can truly reconcile their internal beliefs (religious) with an externally implanted system like say Buddhism or Daoism or Vedanta (which aren't that religious))..

 

 

And the other thing it does is flips the field of anthropology in reverse direction (so instead of a western scientist studying a foreign culture via the lens of his framework (anthropology), a native is studying the west).

 

I'm not inferring so much what the book says, I have no money and I'm bumming a room from a fellow unnamed taobum, so I don't have time to go out and buy it, what I'm saying is in reference to the general tone of the thread.

 

Again, for me I could care less about the dharmic or abrahamic traditions. I urge people to look past these things and examine the self without any preconceived notion. When one allows themselves to seek truth through a lens, then invariably what they will see will be colored by that lens. It may appear to be the truth, but they will never know if it's the actual appearance of truth or not.

 

So perhaps the answer doesn't lie in harmonizing the two cultures, but rather in getting rid of both and starting completely from scratch.

 

 

Aaron

[dwai]

I'm not inferring so much what the book says, I have no money and I'm bumming a room from a fellow unnamed taobum, so I don't have time to go out and buy it, what I'm saying is in reference to the general tone of the thread.

 

Again, for me I could care less about the dharmic or abrahamic traditions. I urge people to look past these things and examine the self without any preconceived notion. When one allows themselves to seek truth through a lens, then invariably what they will see will be colored by that lens. It may appear to be the truth, but they will never know if it's the actual appearance of truth or not.

 

So perhaps the answer doesn't lie in harmonizing the two cultures, but rather in getting rid of both and starting completely from scratch.

 

 

Aaron

Aaron, thats exactly what the dharmic traditions do.

[Marblehead]

One never has no-preconceived notions as long as one draws breath.

Are you really sure about that?

[Aaron]

Aaron, thats exactly what the dharmic traditions do.

 

Hello Dwai,

 

That's the crux of this for me. If one examines Vedanta in depth one begins to understand that the underlying message is to look past what you conceive yourself to be, and examine yourself as you actually are. This is the same message that's presented in Taoism and Buddhism and I would even go so far as to say it's found in the Abrahamic traditions as well, but the inherent problem with religions is that they place more emphasis on other's preconceived notions of the truth, rather than allowing their followers to figure it out for themselves. Religions have a lot invested in keeping people entrenched in dogma, it keeps the begging bowls and donation pans full so that the priests get their dues. In my mind much of this dogma has been distorted and convoluted in an attempt to make sure that people are obedient and follow directions without question.

 

If we follow things blindly, if we do not ask questions, if we do not question everything, not just from our own subjective experience, but examine it from it's root source, putting aside our own opinions and instead look at it as it actually is, then what we invariably do is learn exactly what is being taught, rather than the actual truth.

 

It may seem that I'm anti-religion, but that's not it at all, I'm not anti-religion simply because I believe people have the right to decide for themselves what the truth is, what I actually try to do is encourage people to question what the truth is, to feel those warning signs when someone comes and tells them what the absolute truth is. The first thing you should ask yourself when someone says, "this is the truth and if you don't follow it you will never find salvation/enlightenment/an end to suffering/etc. is "why?" If they can't answer this in plain language, without semantics and dogma, then what you have is an answer intrinsically linked to dogma and not objective reality.

 

Be done with knowledge. Once you are done with knowledge, then you can begin to experience things on an entirely different level.

 

Aaron

[dwai]

Hello Dwai,

 

That's the crux of this for me. If one examines Vedanta in depth one begins to understand that the underlying message is to look past what you conceive yourself to be, and examine yourself as you actually are. This is the same message that's presented in Taoism and Buddhism and I would even go so far as to say it's found in the Abrahamic traditions as well, but the inherent problem with religions is that they place more emphasis on other's preconceived notions of the truth, rather than allowing their followers to figure it out for themselves. Religions have a lot invested in keeping people entrenched in dogma, it keeps the begging bowls and donation pans full so that the priests get their dues. In my mind much of this dogma has been distorted and convoluted in an attempt to make sure that people are obedient and follow directions without question.

 

If we follow things blindly, if we do not ask questions, if we do not question everything, not just from our own subjective experience, but examine it from it's root source, putting aside our own opinions and instead look at it as it actually is, then what we invariably do is learn exactly what is being taught, rather than the actual truth.

 

It may seem that I'm anti-religion, but that's not it at all, I'm not anti-religion simply because I believe people have the right to decide for themselves what the truth is, what I actually try to do is encourage people to question what the truth is, to feel those warning signs when someone comes and tells them what the absolute truth is. The first thing you should ask yourself when someone says, "this is the truth and if you don't follow it you will never find salvation/enlightenment/an end to suffering/etc. is "why?" If they can't answer this in plain language, without semantics and dogma, then what you have is an answer intrinsically linked to dogma and not objective reality.

 

Be done with knowledge. Once you are done with knowledge, then you can begin to experience things on an entirely different level.

 

Aaron

I completely understand where you're coming from. My problem is not with thinkers but with the dogmatists. I have seen however that those who gave this approach tend to follow eastern traditions. There in lies the issue...when we approach something which has the foundation of thousands of years of implicit knowledge in its folds with the (often misguided) notion of reducing it down to its core, we end up destroying the implicit ecosystem that is part and parcel of its whole. What is the so-called secularization of these traditions in reality often is massive reductionism just for the sake of it (ie reduction).

[Informer]

I completely understand where you're coming from. My problem is not with thinkers but with the dogmatists. I have seen however that those who gave this approach tend to follow eastern traditions. There in lies the issue...when we approach something which has the foundation of thousands of years of implicit knowledge in its folds with the (often misguided) notion of reducing it down to its core, we end up destroying the implicit ecosystem that is part and parcel of its whole. What is the so-called secularization of these traditions in reality often is massive reductionism just for the sake of it (ie reduction).

 

 

It's because people start to think they are special, different, superior, inferior. It is obviously misguided when such statements prevail over the foundation. How can it be less than obvious that it is more often than not used as power? All of those statements for power exist within the elaborations, not the prophecies.

 

How you elaborate doesn't really change anything actual. It is only a slight to the foundation. Misinformation is more dominant than most care to believe, until they begin the search for it.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Informer

[JustARandomPanda]

Are you really sure about that?

 

 

Are you not?

[Informer]

One never has no-preconceived notions as long as one draws breath.

 

This is a double negative. Did you mean "One is never without preconceived notions?" One is the only thing without it (imo)^.~

[Marblehead]

Are you not?

Not in the least.

 

There is an objective reality. I call it "the objective universe".

 

The objective universe existed before I was born and will exist after I am dead. The before existed without my subjective, preconceived notions, and will continue to exist without my preconceived notions.

 

If this is true, and I do believe it is, then why cannot I view this objective universe without my preconceived notions? I feel there is no reason why I cannot.

 

I will call this simply experiencing without judgement. This is called (by me) experiencing the "what is".

 

I am. What more is there to be said? Oh, sure, I and others could place our preconceived notions on this fact and say all sorts of things about what I am but does that really change anything; does it change the "I am"?

 

Some of my friends here who I have strongly disagreed with may have wished very strongly that I do not exist. Even they were unable to change the objective reality of my existence.

 

If we call a chair a coffee cup and try to drink coffee from it we will fail every time.

 

And yes, it is true, the use of double negatives in a sentence is misleading (and bad grammer too). Hehehe.

[dwai]

It's because people start to think they are special, different, superior, inferior. It is obviously misguided when such statements prevail over the foundation. How can it be less than obvious that it is more often than not used as power? All of those statements for power exist within the elaborations, not the prophecies.

 

How you elaborate doesn't really change anything actual. It is only a slight to the foundation. Misinformation is more dominant than most care to believe, until they begin the search for it.

 

Actually if you think about it carefully, you will see that the problem isn't because people think they are different. The problem arises from the anxiety that being different causes among people. This book highlights the pathologies that follow in wake of this anxiety.

 

1) try and make everything the "same"...giving rise to different efforts to that end -- philosophy that suggests "everything is same" or "make everything same by converting every other thing into that which is not".

 

2) Various means to make this "sameness" happen...(proselytizing, conflict, war -- the world has seen such happenings since history of human civilization -- crusades, world wars, terrorism, etc)

 

Regarding "everything is same" topic. Please don't think that I'm disputing that most esoteric spiritual practices leads towards a similar goal (specifics vary but in general they are identical). What might vary are the details that are involved (and sometimes even those are superficial). However, that doesn't make all way "same". I remember in my Buddha-bum dialogs I faced vehement opposition when I suggested that Advaita Vedanta, Daoism and Buddhism all point to the same "moon". The reason for this opposition was because people conflated the direction and the methods.

 

The methods might be radically different and these differences make for more learning (from each other) and refining. The direction...well what can be said about that?

 

Each of these traditions attract people based on various conditions:

 

* the cultural background into which these traditions are weaved in

* the personal predilection of the individual

* the karma (if one were to subscribe to that) of the invidual, etc

* the state of being (a mind-oriented individual would prefer probably an intellectual pursuit, a physical-oriented individual would probably prefer an action-based pursuit, etc)

* what is to say which is better or worse? It is a conditional reality and the conditions will define which is better or worse (for the individual). Perhaps better or worse are wrongly applied here...we should use optimal or sub-optimal.

 

So you see, being different is as natural as the infinite things that exist in this universe. There are commonalities but the differences should not be subsumed by these. When people approach the subject from that perspective, naturally mutual respect arises...when people don't and conflate the means with the end, the problems arise.

Edited February 24, 2012 by dwai

[Informer]

In actuality we are the same, in illusion we are different.

 

The differences are irrelevant in actuality.

 

You can keep whatever philosophy you like, It doesn't change anything other than your perspective or outlook on a perceived reality, not actuality. Which a part of actuality is that perspectives aren't necessarily fixed unless chosen to be.

 

However a line is drawn, it is still dividing, as it is the nature of a line.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

Not in the least.

 

There is an objective reality. I call it "the objective universe".

 

The objective universe existed before I was born and will exist after I am dead. The before existed without my subjective, preconceived notions, and will continue to exist without my preconceived notions.

 

If this is true, and I do believe it is, then why cannot I view this objective universe without my preconceived notions? I feel there is no reason why I cannot.

 

I will call this simply experiencing without judgement. This is called (by me) experiencing the "what is".

 

I am. What more is there to be said? Oh, sure, I and others could place our preconceived notions on this fact and say all sorts of things about what I am but does that really change anything; does it change the "I am"?

 

Some of my friends here who I have strongly disagreed with may have wished very strongly that I do not exist. Even they were unable to change the objective reality of my existence.

 

If we call a chair a coffee cup and try to drink coffee from it we will fail every time.

 

And yes, it is true, the use of double negatives in a sentence is misleading (and bad grammer too). Hehehe.

 

[dwai]

In actuality we are the same, in illusion we are different.

 

The differences are irrelevant in actuality.

 

You can keep whatever philosophy you like, It doesn't change anything other than your perspective or outlook on a perceived reality, not actuality. Which a part of actuality is that perspectives aren't necessarily fixed unless chosen to be.

 

However a line is drawn, it is still dividing, as it is the nature of a line.

 

Are they really that irrelevant? Are all human beings living on this planet realized masters who see the unity of existence? I think not...so it's better to have a good understanding and healthy respect for each other's beliefs and practices. That is a pragmatic approach to have....till we all get "enlightened".

 

[Informer]

It's obviously not helping to get us all "enlightened" imo.

[dwai]

It's obviously not helping to get us all "enlightened" imo.

 

What's stopping you? So, stop being different and get enlightened already!

[Informer]

What's stopping you? So, stop being different and get enlightened already!

 

Nah, more people need to awaken first imo.

 

(imagine trying to conceptualize a mountain top to a fish)

Edited February 24, 2012 by Informer

[3bob]

I was here before the universe, during the universe and I'll be here after the universe... it's all weavings of mind stuff coming and going.

 

Om

[dwai]

Nah, more people need to awaken first imo.

 

(imagine trying to conceptualize a mountain top to a fish)

Er...there are underwter mountains too

[dwai]

I was here before the universe, during the universe and I'll be here after the universe... it's all weavings of mind stuff coming and going.

 

Om

 

 

So you have no responsibility?

[3bob]

So you have no responsibility?

 

which "you" is me?

[3bob]

which "you" is me?

 

which "I" is (so to speak) here before, during and after the universe...? (and universes that are coming and going in endless cycles)

 

Dharmas and karmas are exacting in responsibilities and unavoidable by a separate "you".

[Marblehead]

which "I" is (so to speak) here before, during and after the universe...? (and universes that are coming and going in endless cycles)

 

Dharmas and karmas are exacting in responsibilities and unavoidable by a separate "you".

 

That's, Oh!, so Booddhist.