Being Different 2

[Aaron]

This thread was started to prevent the continual off-topic discussion occurring in the Being Different thread. The nature of this off-topic discussion revolves around the necessity of religion and philosophy. If you would like to learn more, please refer to that thread.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

and which natural state of being would that be... as a human body, as a mind, as a soul, as a spirit? Religion is part of form and to deny form is at least problematic.

 

 

Hello Bob,

 

I wasn't ignoring you, I just passed over your post.

 

First I believe the the human body, spirit (which I consider the soul), and mind are one, differentiating between the three is useless, because they're all a single being (which by proxy is also everything). Much of what I have said in response to Dwai in subsequent posts after this comment responds to this question. So my answer is simply the natural state of being, in other words all of these states, since effecting one effects the others as well.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Dear Aaron,

 

I'm not ignoring your question. I have already given the answer...you haven't seen it yet.

I'm saying that there is no escaping Categorical frameworks...even so-called frameworks to leave all frameworks create a new framework.

 

This is called "Nama-Rupa" in classical Indian philosophy. Any "system" is a complex of one or more categorical frameworks. Why? Because the very fact that there IS a system suggests that there is a certain methodology used to facilitate cognition and intellectual interpretation. So members of a certain species have evolved a basic biological framework based on which they operate. As there is differentiation within the species (slice and dice it as you may -- ethnic groups, linguistic groups, cultural groups, etc) each have developed a unique set of categorical frameworks based on which they operate. While all humans share a common set of categorical frameworks, there is also diversity between them (eg: Eastern thought process is significantly different from Western thought process, as a function of the different intellectual models being used - materialist vs idealist, so on and so forth).

 

So, to make a really long story short, if there is a system, there is a categorical framework.

 

Also posited in Vedanta (and other Eastern philosophies) is the concept of relative and absolute truth. Relative truth operates in the realm of categorical frameworks. Absolute truth is beyond all categories and labels.

 

Also posited is (based on observation) that the relative realm is one of duality (subject and object). Absolute realm is pure subject. So, in the relative realm subject and object go hand in hand (there is never any single phenomenon in the relative world that is not dualistic in nature). Similarly, for something to be absolute, there can never be a duality, it is always non-dual (tad ekam, na dwitiyam -- that one, not dual).

 

So for a member of the human species to be always present in absolute truth is to be in a state of no-thought (because thoughts are also dualistic in nature). It is because of this reason, it is impossible to be bereft of categorical frameworks in the mundane reality. Even those great masters who have been enlightened have to step into the mundane world to communicate and operate. It is another matter that they don't really consider the mundane world "absolutely" real -- because the trappings and mechanics of the relative world become evident to them as being empty (of self-existence).

 

So, whether you have religion or not, there is no "freedom" from conceptualized ideation (of any particular thing). Whether one ascribes a value to what they experience is another matter.

 

For one to "get" the absolute realm, he/she still has to use the relative. So, one cannot discard the relative. Since the methdologies to get to this level (of non-dual awareness) are many, thus various religions have evolved to provide the framework to get there.

 

Some of these religions don't go beyond duality. Some others do. So, in the relative sense, as long as the religion provides a bulwark for humans to expand their consciousness and awareness and get closer to the absolute, it is perfectly valid.

 

Do various adherents of the various religions use them for control? Sure. Does that mean that these religions are bad? Surely not.

 

So, each individual has to choose which one in the buffet of religions works for them at a deeply personal level. For some none of them work, so they choose a different path. However, they still develop or use an alternate categorical framework to get what they want. That's why, no-religion is also a religion.

 

 

 

 

First off, I'm not sure why you keep inferring that I am saying religion is bad, I'm not. To clarify, I'm saying they're unnecessary.

 

In regards to the constructs of the mind, thoughts are every bit as real and a part of who we are as our physical bodies are, that's why religion can be so damaging, because if one is entrenched in it's dogma it actually effects our body, mind, and spirit. This is subtle point many people miss and you make a valid argument in regards to nama-rupa, but what you're missing is the idea that one can see through these categorical frameworks to a greater existence. It's sort of like looking at something underneath the surface of the water, the darker the water gets, the harder it is to see. Nama-Rupa is essentially the darkness in the water, the cloudy part that prevents us from getting a clearer picture of who we are. We can't minimize the effects of nama-rupa through contemplation and introspection, because it only creates more murkiness, the only way to really see through it, to clear the murkiness is through the complete cessation of thought, the stillness of the mind. Once you still your mind you'll find that all those dark murky constructs floating within the self settle to the surface and then you can have clarity and see the self for what it is. If you have any doubts in this regard ask your teacher about this and I'm sure they'll give you the same explanation I have.

 

When I say that these constructs aren't real, I mean in the actual physical sense, that these abstract notions have no effect on our ability to navigate the physical world. In regards to navigating the spiritual world, well then they simply stir up more murk to clutter our self-perception. Absolute truths are probably the worst offenders in this regard, because they only exist within the constructs themselves, in the totality of everything they simply are neither true or false, but rather simply are.

 

So a wise man doesn't say something is absolute, because in order for it to be absolute, it must also be finite, since each thing is connected. To make this idea clearer I will use an example I've used before:

TRUE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FALSE

When one looks at the above example, they will see true and false on either sides of a spectrum, but this is merely an illusion, in fact true and false exist together as one thing. Our decision to make something true or false is completely subjective. The apple is red. Well most of us would say this is true, but can it be true for someone incapable of seeing red? Is red even a valid description of it, or merely one that we have decided to give it for convenience sake? In actuality, upon close examination we find the surface of the apple is mostly red, but there are other colors there as well. We've decided that the statement is true based on the notion that since the apple is mostly red, then describing it as red is fine.

Now I mention this because this point is very important to grasp if one is intent on self introspection and that point is that it is only when we give up the notion of true and false that we can begin to see through the frameworks that have been provided for us.

When one examines religion we find true and false nearly everywhere. There is reason for this, because the more you categorize a code of thought or conduct, the more you control someone. Most people don't understand that truths are the most devious weapon of the righteous, they oftentimes take something that seems logical as truth without even questioning it, simply because our social indoctrination makes us susceptible to it.

In regards to absolute realm, it is important to view it within it's context... lets use the line again-

SUBJECT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OBJECT

Now in this scheme we can see that the subject and object are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but they are still the same thing. You cannot have a subject without an object and visa-versa. In order to understand the subject we must understand the object and how the two are one.

An example of the human being is excellent in this regard. The Subject could be deemed the mind, the awareness that perceives the object, the body. Now because of our way of viewing things we immediately believe that these two things are separate, but in reality they are the same thing. The subject cannot exist without the object, first, but even more so, the subject is only viewed as separate because it has been told to view it as so because it has been taught to. I could go deeper into this idea, but I think that is enough to make my point.

Now, so this isn't completely off the topic of the necessity of religion, the notion that religions are necessary to understand any of these things is ludicrous. In fact anyone can perceive these things on their own and come to a deeper awareness of self, as well as an awareness to what reality actually is, their connection to all things, it just requires practice.

That is my point really, that religion and philosophy is unnecessary, that the only thing required is introspection and self-discovery.

It's late, so I'm stopping there. I know I haven't addressed all your points, if you have something you feel I must absolutely (pun intended) address, please feel free to ask.

Aaron

[Protector]

Religion and philosophy are not a part of some people's lives, they are just a small part of infinite possibilities that people can face. 'There are as many paths as there are people on earth', goes the saying.

Paths that don't have a start or finish, don't have a distance or destination to walk to, but there's always a movement no matter what happens. There's no step back even if something bad happens, there's always something to learn and there's a place for it to happen.

[dwai]

First off, I'm not sure why you keep inferring that I am saying religion is bad, I'm not. To clarify, I'm saying they're unnecessary.

 

In regards to the constructs of the mind, thoughts are every bit as real and a part of who we are as our physical bodies are, that's why religion can be so damaging, because if one is entrenched in it's dogma it actually effects our body, mind, and spirit. This is subtle point many people miss and you make a valid argument in regards to nama-rupa, but what you're missing is the idea that one can see through these categorical frameworks to a greater existence. It's sort of like looking at something underneath the surface of the water, the darker the water gets, the harder it is to see. Nama-Rupa is essentially the darkness in the water, the cloudy part that prevents us from getting a clearer picture of who we are. We can't minimize the effects of nama-rupa through contemplation and introspection, because it only creates more murkiness, the only way to really see through it, to clear the murkiness is through the complete cessation of thought, the stillness of the mind. Once you still your mind you'll find that all those dark murky constructs floating within the self settle to the surface and then you can have clarity and see the self for what it is. If you have any doubts in this regard ask your teacher about this and I'm sure they'll give you the same explanation I have.

 

When I say that these constructs aren't real, I mean in the actual physical sense, that these abstract notions have no effect on our ability to navigate the physical world. In regards to navigating the spiritual world, well then they simply stir up more murk to clutter our self-perception. Absolute truths are probably the worst offenders in this regard, because they only exist within the constructs themselves, in the totality of everything they simply are neither true or false, but rather simply are.

 

So a wise man doesn't say something is absolute, because in order for it to be absolute, it must also be finite, since each thing is connected. To make this idea clearer I will use an example I've used before:

TRUE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FALSE

When one looks at the above example, they will see true and false on either sides of a spectrum, but this is merely an illusion, in fact true and false exist together as one thing. Our decision to make something true or false is completely subjective. The apple is red. Well most of us would say this is true, but can it be true for someone incapable of seeing red? Is red even a valid description of it, or merely one that we have decided to give it for convenience sake? In actuality, upon close examination we find the surface of the apple is mostly red, but there are other colors there as well. We've decided that the statement is true based on the notion that since the apple is mostly red, then describing it as red is fine.

Now I mention this because this point is very important to grasp if one is intent on self introspection and that point is that it is only when we give up the notion of true and false that we can begin to see through the frameworks that have been provided for us.

When one examines religion we find true and false nearly everywhere. There is reason for this, because the more you categorize a code of thought or conduct, the more you control someone. Most people don't understand that truths are the most devious weapon of the righteous, they oftentimes take something that seems logical as truth without even questioning it, simply because our social indoctrination makes us susceptible to it.

In regards to absolute realm, it is important to view it within it's context... lets use the line again-

SUBJECT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OBJECT

Now in this scheme we can see that the subject and object are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but they are still the same thing. You cannot have a subject without an object and visa-versa. In order to understand the subject we must understand the object and how the two are one.

An example of the human being is excellent in this regard. The Subject could be deemed the mind, the awareness that perceives the object, the body. Now because of our way of viewing things we immediately believe that these two things are separate, but in reality they are the same thing. The subject cannot exist without the object, first, but even more so, the subject is only viewed as separate because it has been told to view it as so because it has been taught to. I could go deeper into this idea, but I think that is enough to make my point.

Now, so this isn't completely off the topic of the necessity of religion, the notion that religions are necessary to understand any of these things is ludicrous. In fact anyone can perceive these things on their own and come to a deeper awareness of self, as well as an awareness to what reality actually is, their connection to all things, it just requires practice.

That is my point really, that religion and philosophy is unnecessary, that the only thing required is introspection and self-discovery.

It's late, so I'm stopping there. I know I haven't addressed all your points, if you have something you feel I must absolutely (pun intended) address, please feel free to ask.

Aaron

 

ok ... You win

[Aaron]

ok ... You win

 

Well that's not any good. I'm not trying to win, I'm just pointing out what I believe. I'm disappointed that the conversation has ended here, but if you don't want to continue, I understand.

 

 

Also, thanks for the conversation regardless. You're insight has given me much food for thought.

 

Aaron

Edited March 16, 2012 by Twinner

[dwai]

First off, I'm not sure why you keep inferring that I am saying religion is bad, I'm not. To clarify, I'm saying they're unnecessary.

 

What's the difference? One is a natural corollary to the other, isn't it?

See the entire exchange we've had is deeply rooted in philosophy (which is the mother of religion to a large extent). Secondly, religion is also a way to facilitate cultural transmissions (from one generation to another). For instance, in India, there is not much emphasis on organized religion (for non abrahamic faiths) -- ie there are temples, etc but there is no compulsion to attend a service in the temple with any particular frequency. I must have visited temples 20-30 times in my life thus far. And of that, perhaps 50% of that was spent as a tourist or a patron of art (because Indian temples are wonderful works of art). In my circles which is very diverse, it is the same case.

 

The majority of training in ethics, morality, how to conduct oneself in society are instead reinforced via the family (elders) -- using various tools such as fables, mythology, led by example, etc.

 

The emphasis is on individual effort, for a seeker to gravitate towards a deity or no deity and pursue a system that works for him/her. Most people there are open minded and don't ascribe to dogma in the sense that you are projecting. Sure, many believe in God, but that is a matter of faith (colored by their experiences, etc).

 

However, what westerners see when they visit india is an often "over-the-top" display of religious fervor, giant processions of massive deities, so on and so forth...that's from the outsider's perspective. From an insider's perspective, those displays are actually as much celebrations of tradition and culture as they are about "religion".

 

Just like people attend concerts, plays, operas outside the context of religion in the West, these happen in the context of religion and associated festivities in India.

 

So, when I present my case, I present it as an Indian Hindu (born and raised) who has had the opportunity of living and working in the West. As it must be evident by now, that your experiences with religion might have been radically different from mine. I have grown up for the most part in a model where all religions are treated with openness, not much jingoism and as personal choices that don't affect civil life (of course there are aberrations, but those are by far insignificant in number, in the grand scheme of things).

 

In regards to the constructs of the mind, thoughts are every bit as real and a part of who we are as our physical bodies are, that's why religion can be so damaging, because if one is entrenched in it's dogma it actually effects our body, mind, and spirit. This is subtle point many people miss and you make a valid argument in regards to nama-rupa, but what you're missing is the idea that one can see through these categorical frameworks to a greater existence. It's sort of like looking at something underneath the surface of the water, the darker the water gets, the harder it is to see. Nama-Rupa is essentially the darkness in the water, the cloudy part that prevents us from getting a clearer picture of who we are. We can't minimize the effects of nama-rupa through contemplation and introspection, because it only creates more murkiness, the only way to really see through it, to clear the murkiness is through the complete cessation of thought, the stillness of the mind. Once you still your mind you'll find that all those dark murky constructs floating within the self settle to the surface and then you can have clarity and see the self for what it is. If you have any doubts in this regard ask your teacher about this and I'm sure they'll give you the same explanation I have.

 

I have never disputed the fact that one can see through these categorical frameworks to a greater existence. This is called Atma Jnana in Vedanta...or Self-realization. When all that is not the true self is stripped away, that which is the true self shines in its own light. But for practical purposes, it is not very feasible for everyone to get to that state easily. What is the hurdle, the very categorical frameworks that we use everyday and the actions that we take based on them (karma).

 

Trust me, I have had more than a few experiences with the "Self". But I cannot reject the "self" that is not the "Self" (if that makes sense). Why? Because what is set in motion in this world is everything that is associated with "me" -- a family, responsibilities, etc. Most people in this world are like that...not everyone can get up and walk away from it all and spend time in meditation.

 

In the Indian model, there are four stages of life that every individual is recommended to live through. The childhood through early adulthood is called Brahmacharya (as a student, a seeker of knowledge, an acquirer of wisdom). The next phase is that of a householder (or Grihastya) where one fulfills his/her duty to the society he/she is part of (raise a family, charitable actions to help those who are less privileged). The third is around retirement age, where one retreats to relative solitude with his/her spouse and spends time in contemplation of everything that has transpired so far, trying to understand the knowledge that has been acquired (spiritual) - this is called vanahprastha (in the ancient times, a couple would go live in a forest amidst nature). The final stage is called Sannyasa (or ascetism), where the individual breaks the bonds of this world (samsara) and gives up his/her personal history and lives the rest of their life in 100% dedicated discovery of the true self (Atman).

 

One could argue that this process is slow and tedious, why not jump to stage 4 directly. One could if they had the capacity to do so. Not everyone does. It is amazing how most people in this world need to be "eased" into spirituality...very few come with the ability to tune in with ease.

 

 

When I say that these constructs aren't real, I mean in the actual physical sense, that these abstract notions have no effect on our ability to navigate the physical world. In regards to navigating the spiritual world, well then they simply stir up more murk to clutter our self-perception. Absolute truths are probably the worst offenders in this regard, because they only exist within the constructs themselves, in the totality of everything they simply are neither true or false, but rather simply are.

 

Hmm...what is referred to as absolute truth is something that is beyond the scope of categorical frameworks. So, while there might be absolute truth claims (which is the root of the problem), they are not infact absolute truth. There can never be absolutes in a relativistic world, don't you think?

 

 

So a wise man doesn't say something is absolute, because in order for it to be absolute, it must also be finite, since each thing is connected. To make this idea clearer I will use an example I've used before:

TRUE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FALSE

When one looks at the above example, they will see true and false on either sides of a spectrum, but this is merely an illusion, in fact true and false exist together as one thing. Our decision to make something true or false is completely subjective. The apple is red. Well most of us would say this is true, but can it be true for someone incapable of seeing red? Is red even a valid description of it, or merely one that we have decided to give it for convenience sake? In actuality, upon close examination we find the surface of the apple is mostly red, but there are other colors there as well. We've decided that the statement is true based on the notion that since the apple is mostly red, then describing it as red is fine.

Now I mention this because this point is very important to grasp if one is intent on self introspection and that point is that it is only when we give up the notion of true and false that we can begin to see through the frameworks that have been provided for us.

When one examines religion we find true and false nearly everywhere. There is reason for this, because the more you categorize a code of thought or conduct, the more you control someone. Most people don't understand that truths are the most devious weapon of the righteous, they oftentimes take something that seems logical as truth without even questioning it, simply because our social indoctrination makes us susceptible to it.

I truly wish I could get you a copy of Being Different. If you have a kindle account, PM me your email id and I'll lend you my ebook.

A wise man would not leave the subject at "there is an absolute reality". The wise man would say "there is an absolute reality, but there is no point talking about it, because the moment we try to wrap it in syntax, it becomes relative -- "The dao that can be named is not the real dao/Brahman is silence etc".

In regards to absolute realm, it is important to view it within it's context... lets use the line again-

SUBJECT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OBJECT

Now in this scheme we can see that the subject and object are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but they are still the same thing. You cannot have a subject without an object and visa-versa. In order to understand the subject we must understand the object and how the two are one.

That's why the concept of Pratitya-samutpada (or Depend Origination) is so radical. How do we determine that something is relative or absolute? If there is a subject and an object, they are dependent on each other. So, an observation about the object is dependent on the subject. Neither has self-existence (so they are empty of self-nature). And what follows next is...

An example of the human being is excellent in this regard. The Subject could be deemed the mind, the awareness that perceives the object, the body. Now because of our way of viewing things we immediately believe that these two things are separate, but in reality they are the same thing. The subject cannot exist without the object, first, but even more so, the subject is only viewed as separate because it has been told to view it as so because it has been taught to. I could go deeper into this idea, but I think that is enough to make my point.

The cartesian divide of mind-body is unique to the West. In Eastern traditions there is no such differentiation. So, picking up from my previous paragraph, any thing that has a beginning will have an end. If it can be observed and either described or labeled (or both), it is a phenomenon. If it is a phenomenon, it is an object. What systems like Vedanta suggest is that when one abides in perfect stillness, silence, all thoughts eventually fade away (and what remains is pure intelligence, awareness, consciousness). That is something that cannot be described, labelled (in the moment). The practice is to cultivate this stillness, emptiness and there are many ways to do so. Seated meditation, Yoga, so on and so forth. So it is said that "the truth is one, the sages refer to it in different ways"...Religion is one way (each religion is one way), no-religion is yet another way. Depending on the nature of the individual, one may or may not work.

Now, so this isn't completely off the topic of the necessity of religion, the notion that religions are necessary to understand any of these things is ludicrous. In fact anyone can perceive these things on their own and come to a deeper awareness of self, as well as an awareness to what reality actually is, their connection to all things, it just requires practice.

That is my point really, that religion and philosophy is unnecessary, that the only thing required is introspection and self-discovery.

It's late, so I'm stopping there. I know I haven't addressed all your points, if you have something you feel I must absolutely (pun intended) address, please feel free to ask.

Aaron

 

It is clear that religion is not necessary for you. For me, I need the triumvirate of philosophy, a system (actually a combination of meditation, yoga and tai chi -- which I equate to Vedanta and Daoism, wherein these systems are contained) and my own consciousness.

[Aaron]

Hello Dwai,

 

I'm a bit beat so forgive me if I'm don't say much this time. Thank you for responding. Here's my response to your points.

 

What's the difference? One is a natural corollary to the other, isn't it?

See the entire exchange we've had is deeply rooted in philosophy (which is the mother of religion to a large extent). Secondly, religion is also a way to facilitate cultural transmissions (from one generation to another). For instance, in India, there is not much emphasis on organized religion (for non abrahamic faiths) -- ie there are temples, etc but there is no compulsion to attend a service in the temple with any particular frequency. I must have visited temples 20-30 times in my life thus far. And of that, perhaps 50% of that was spent as a tourist or a patron of art (because Indian temples are wonderful works of art). In my circles which is very diverse, it is the same case.

 

I think this is very much as it is in the United States. We tend to forget that the majority of self identifying Christians rarely attend church on a regular basis, but only during holidays and such. Also many of our holidays are religious based as well, Christmas and Easter being the most identifiable, but Halloween being a good example of another religious holiday that was made secular. When one examines this notion in this sense, then one will find that India and the United States (Western world) are not that far apart.

 

The majority of training in ethics, morality, how to conduct oneself in society are instead reinforced via the family (elders) -- using various tools such as fables, mythology, led by example, etc.

 

My point in regards to morality and ethics, is that most are heavily entrenched within religion. For instance masturbation, coveting your neighbor's wife (i.e. admiring her beauty and fantasizing about having sex with her), and even marriage are ethical ideals that are propagated by religions. Most of our moral codes come from religion, whether Hindu, Christian, Islam, or Buddhism.

 

The emphasis is on individual effort, for a seeker to gravitate towards a deity or no deity and pursue a system that works for him/her. Most people there are open minded and don't ascribe to dogma in the sense that you are projecting. Sure, many believe in God, but that is a matter of faith (colored by their experiences, etc).

 

I think that this is also present in the Western world as well, only the fundamentalists tend to try to direct their children and others towards a religion, and only the ultra-right fundamentalists go so far as to try to convert people to their own religion. I will admit that it is more prevalent in the West.

 

However, what westerners see when they visit india is an often "over-the-top" display of religious fervor, giant processions of massive deities, so on and so forth...that's from the outsider's perspective. From an insider's perspective, those displays are actually as much celebrations of tradition and culture as they are about "religion".

 

Just like people attend concerts, plays, operas outside the context of religion in the West, these happen in the context of religion and associated festivities in India.

 

So, when I present my case, I present it as an Indian Hindu (born and raised) who has had the opportunity of living and working in the West. As it must be evident by now, that your experiences with religion might have been radically different from mine. I have grown up for the most part in a model where all religions are treated with openness, not much jingoism and as personal choices that don't affect civil life (of course there are aberrations, but those are by far insignificant in number, in the grand scheme of things).

 

I think my experience was quite different than most people, but I try very hard to address this topic without bias. In regards to religion, my main issue isn't in the practice, but in the ideology and enforced moral dogma that is attached to it, that becomes entrenched in the social structure itself.

 

 

I have never disputed the fact that one can see through these categorical frameworks to a greater existence. This is called Atma Jnana in Vedanta...or Self-realization. When all that is not the true self is stripped away, that which is the true self shines in its own light. But for practical purposes, it is not very feasible for everyone to get to that state easily. What is the hurdle, the very categorical frameworks that we use everyday and the actions that we take based on them (karma).

 

Trust me, I have had more than a few experiences with the "Self". But I cannot reject the "self" that is not the "Self" (if that makes sense). Why? Because what is set in motion in this world is everything that is associated with "me" -- a family, responsibilities, etc. Most people in this world are like that...not everyone can get up and walk away from it all and spend time in meditation.

 

In the Indian model, there are four stages of life that every individual is recommended to live through. The childhood through early adulthood is called Brahmacharya (as a student, a seeker of knowledge, an acquirer of wisdom). The next phase is that of a householder (or Grihastya) where one fulfills his/her duty to the society he/she is part of (raise a family, charitable actions to help those who are less privileged). The third is around retirement age, where one retreats to relative solitude with his/her spouse and spends time in contemplation of everything that has transpired so far, trying to understand the knowledge that has been acquired (spiritual) - this is called vanahprastha (in the ancient times, a couple would go live in a forest amidst nature). The final stage is called Sannyasa (or ascetism), where the individual breaks the bonds of this world (samsara) and gives up his/her personal history and lives the rest of their life in 100% dedicated discovery of the true self (Atman).

 

One could argue that this process is slow and tedious, why not jump to stage 4 directly. One could if they had the capacity to do so. Not everyone does. It is amazing how most people in this world need to be "eased" into spirituality...very few come with the ability to tune in with ease.

 

I think this is the way it should be for most people, so I wont disagree with you in this regard. Again my message isn't that religions should be outlawed, but rather that people shouldn't be forced into practicing them by social pressures. In reality I think very few people raised Hindu are going to decide when they get older to become Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists, simply because they have a certain construct of what is right and wrong already laid down in this regard.

 

My main point is that being rid of these constructs is the only way for us to really identify the truth, that so long as we allow a construct to dictate the truth, then we will never be entirely sure of what the truth actually is (or in my view isn't).

 

I'm also very fond of Vedanta philosophy and I personally feel more akin to it than other religions, simply because I think it glimpses the truth more than any other religion or philosophy. I think most Westerners gravitate towards Buddhism (and perhaps Taoism to a lesser extent) simply because they are more palatable to the Western psyche.

 

Hmm...what is referred to as absolute truth is something that is beyond the scope of categorical frameworks. So, while there might be absolute truth claims (which is the root of the problem), they are not infact absolute truth. There can never be absolutes in a relativistic world, don't you think?

 

 

I truly wish I could get you a copy of Being Different. If you have a kindle account, PM me your email id and I'll lend you my ebook.

A wise man would not leave the subject at "there is an absolute reality". The wise man would say "there is an absolute reality, but there is no point talking about it, because the moment we try to wrap it in syntax, it becomes relative -- "The dao that can be named is not the real dao/Brahman is silence etc".

That's why the concept of Pratitya-samutpada (or Depend Origination) is so radical. How do we determine that something is relative or absolute? If there is a subject and an object, they are dependent on each other. So, an observation about the object is dependent on the subject. Neither has self-existence (so they are empty of self-nature). And what follows next is...

This is an important thing to recognize and most people don't (I would say even Hindu and Buddhists), that what is absolute is neither a true or false, it simply is, and in being, it can't be described or defined, but rather can only be experienced.

In regards to the book, I don't have a kindle account, but I will try and find a cheap copy of it if I can and take a look. I'm not above reading books or learning, I just try to keep it all in perspective.

The cartesian divide of mind-body is unique to the West. In Eastern traditions there is no such differentiation. So, picking up from my previous paragraph, any thing that has a beginning will have an end. If it can be observed and either described or labeled (or both), it is a phenomenon. If it is a phenomenon, it is an object. What systems like Vedanta suggest is that when one abides in perfect stillness, silence, all thoughts eventually fade away (and what remains is pure intelligence, awareness, consciousness). That is something that cannot be described, labelled (in the moment). The practice is to cultivate this stillness, emptiness and there are many ways to do so. Seated meditation, Yoga, so on and so forth. So it is said that "the truth is one, the sages refer to it in different ways"...Religion is one way (each religion is one way), no-religion is yet another way. Depending on the nature of the individual, one may or may not work.

I think this divide of body and mind is present in (nearly) every society except for India. I find it when I talk to Chinese and Japanese people as well. It's very sad that it does exist, simply because it prevents us from knowing who we really are. It is an amazing thing to realize (not just intellectually) that we are not just a mind within a vehicle but the vehicle and everything else that exists.

It is clear that religion is not necessary for you. For me, I need the triumvirate of philosophy, a system (actually a combination of meditation, yoga and tai chi -- which I equate to Vedanta and Daoism, wherein these systems are contained) and my own consciousness.

 

What I would ask is if you really mean "I want a trumvirate", rather than need? If so how does this change the notion of the necessity of religion?

 

Thanks again for your response. I think we are having an excellent dialogue and if at any time you feel I am not addressing a point you feel is important let me know and I'll get back to you on it.

 

Aaron