Using Eastern spirituality to repress your individuality

[Jetsun]

When we are young most of us are conditioned by others about what we think, what is acceptable, we are bombarded from a very young age with concepts telling us who we are and what our value is and what our role is in this world. That is just from our carers, then we go through it all with educators pushing us about, telling us what our limitations are. It's no wonder very few people grow up natural as our individuality has been battered by all these things coming at us trying to mould us a certain way or put us in a nice safe box, essentially we are being moulded to be docile, to not rock the boat and cause problems.

 

So some of us go looking for a way out of this situation trying to reclaim what we have lost and find Eastern spiritual teachings which promise to set us free, but then we are told that our problem is our sense of self, our individuality is the root, that same individuality which has been battered its whole life and not been allowed its full expression. Is this not just the same assault all over again but from a different angle?

 

Is it an accident that so many of the great artists and radical thinkers come from countries which value individuality? I was listening to an interview the other day with a Dutch Footballer who plays for the Japanese national team and he says that Japan never produce any really good centre forwards because their whole ethos is about the team and not about individuals, so they never have that man up front who is prepared to produce the bit of magic or individual arrogant brilliance to bring them to the higher level that other countries have. I know that is football but it can be applied to many other areas of life too.

 

So I wonder if the Eastern teachings have been corrupted in this way in order to keep people docile, to not stand out from the crowd and dare to be rebellious and break the rules which keep people in power, as the self and your individuality are the root of all evil aren't they?

 

If you look at the spirituality of someone like Shakespeare it is just as deep as any other yet he explores his individual emotional humanity and his individual thinking and personal expression to greater levels than most other people ever have without developing a megalomaniac ego where he thinks he is a supreme being. So my rant of the day is don't turn Eastern teachings into yet another way to assault yourself and your individuality.

[GrandmasterP]

Good topic. Maybe spirituality has been packaged and marketed as a lifestyle add on. Something to do on top of evertday life and something to be paid for through buying books DVDs or kit,or through temple oferings or the church collection plate. Someone else being invlved be they teacher or priest,shaman or Sifu to whom money is paid.

The western paths ar more that way than the eastern and where that model has caught on in the east the professional providersgot the idea from the west maybe.

We are spiritual beings made flesh for a while now and again so true spirituality is what we ARE all the time rather than something we do now and again and often have to pay for that dubious privilege. A priest in any tradition is like a thief who steals your watch then charges you to tell you what the time is .

[Jetsun]

[Apech]

I agree ... good topic.

 

I think the idea of no-self or that the self is just a composite formed from different causes and conditions confuses a lot of people into thinking that its about suppressing individuality. For instance if you look at a lot of western Buddhists they seem to go for this kind of wimpy mysticism ... but if you look at the history of Buddhism you see a lot of enormously strong characters with larger than life personalities ... so how does that work? The truth is that the no-self/self thing is a paradox in that you do have a self and yet you don't both at the same time ... and if you work with eastern ideas properly although you loosen the ties of ego you actually free up your ability to dynamically expres yourself as a person. Not as a self obsessed introspecting egotist but as a powerfully expressive individual.

 

As to the bowing ... this is just the process of loosening up ... not as an act in public but with yourself to yourself ...

 

Just my thoughts of course

[Birch]

The way I read the 'self/no self' thing is that it says that no-one has a self that is not in some way related / influenced / determined by everything else in the universe (can't get into multiverses because I have no idea what those are). - including all those influences as mentioned above by Jetsun.

 

Then there are other systems that talk about there in fact being a 'self' that is not the self as described above, but is some kind of 'essence'. It would be 'me' in some way without all of the experiences of being determined and influenced and all that. I can get pretty intrigued about who that person might be and some days I spend time looking for her. I suspect I may be disappointed...

 

I agree that if you have suffered what I'll lightly term 'negative influence / determinism' then the tendency may very well be to continue on with same within any subsequent 'belief-system'. It's like changing one pointy hat for a second pointy hat of a slightly different colour. With gongs on.

[GrandmasterP]

LOL @ 'wimpy mysticism'

[Apech]

LOL @ 'wimpy mysticism'

 

I'm sure there's a few in Brum ... sorry East Midlands ....

[Lucky7Strikes]

When Eastern traditions seem to target the individual, it's really targeting the personality and the beliefs of this character you've built as yourself throughout your lifetime. Having likes, dislikes, and a personality are all fine to play (and necessary to interact in the world) with until you begin to confuse them as your true boundaries.

 

A lot of unnecessary suffering happens because of this tendency to see oneself as the body and thoughts. The entire world will appear to be against you because you are now limited to a fragile and very conditioned being.

 

The mistranslation of Eastern teachings taken to the extreme substitute this false notion of body with, well, other material things. As in, "you are not the body...in fact "you" don't exist at all, but just materialistic interactions are happening you think is you." This self-negating principle is very much in line with modern materialistic science, and you are right, it degrades a human being into a choiceless and lifeless thing.

 

The right way is to bridge the Western celebration of individuality and Eastern teachings of universality. Only as someone unencumbered by identification with physical materials, personality and compulsions can be said to be a true individual who has the ability to make choices in life. The whole effort of spiritual discipline is to cut down these bindings so that you will realize a purer state of being, in other words a true individual free to live as he/she chooses.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Aaron]

Hello Jetsun,

 

This is what I've been pointing to for awhile now. It's interesting to see how many people actually feel threatened by these kinds of topics. The fact of the matter is that you have hit it right on the nail. None of us were allowed to become who we should have been, but rather were directed to what others wanted us to be. Part of the problem lies within our concept of morality and ceremony as Lao Tzu pointed to first. It's only when we can recognize this and begin to let go of what we've been told we are, and instead become what we actually are, that we can really experience freedom of individuality.

 

thanks for posting this topic Jetson,

 

Aaron

Edited October 15, 2012 by Aaron

[Aaron]

I wanted to ad that there is no difference between Eastern and Western religions, in fact their purpose, socially speaking is the same. Religion is such a strong part of society because intrinsically it facilitates society's mores and values. These mores and values ensure that each individual is a part of whole and doesn't question what occurs in society unless it deviates from what is taught to be the norm.

 

In my opinion it is not a school or teacher's responsibility to teach morality or spirituality, but rather prepare a student for their adult life. That means that their purpose is to prepare students to excel as adults by teaching them the sciences, mathematics, and how to read and write so that they can use these skills in their future life. The sad fact is that many teachers use their position to propagate their own agenda. They use history, literature, philosophy and the arts as a way to push morality and social values, when in fact these things should be taught by the parents, not the government.

 

In that light, as a free society, we should never intervene in the parent's care of the child in this regard, unless it poses a risk to the child, emotionally or physically. In other words if the parent's moral teachings are abusive, then we should intervene, if only because the child cannot intervene on their own behalf.

 

With that said, it would be nice if people could see the indoctrination they receive for what it is, but in most cases it is so thorough that we rarely question our beliefs in what is right or wrong. Capital punishment, corporal punishment, bigotry, racism, and greed are all intrinsically linked to our education.

 

The fact of the matter is that the children of today will be the adults of tomorrow. We have the opportunity to raise our children as individuals, but we can never do that so long as we believe that children are intrinsically sinful or that somehow they are born with a deficiency that requires moral and spiritual guidance to correct. If we simply taught are kids to not base their actions according to a moral compass, but rather how their actions effect other people, we could not only teach them to be beneficial to their community, but also allow them to grow up as they should and not as we choose them to be.

 

Aaron

 

edit- By the way Kate, that's lesson I was talking about, that we need to learn to recognize the capacity of each of our actions, and in so doing we can learn to live in harmony with others.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Aaron

[RiverSnake]

Interesting video about this topic:

 

[Apech]

A majority can never replace the individual. ... Just as a hundred fools do not make one wise man, a heroic decision is not likely to come from a hundred cowards. [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf," 1933]

 

... er .... well a wise word can come from a genocidal maniac ... ok?

[Birch]

I wanted to ad that there is no difference between Eastern and Western religions, in fact their purpose, socially speaking is the same. Religion is such a strong part of society because intrinsically it facilitates society's mores and values. These mores and values ensure that each individual is a part of whole and doesn't question what occurs in society unless it deviates from what is taught to be the norm.

 

In my opinion it is not a school or teacher's responsibility to teach morality or spirituality, but rather prepare a student for their adult life. That means that their purpose is to prepare students to excel as adults by teaching them the sciences, mathematics, and how to read and write so that they can use these skills in their future life. The sad fact is that many teachers use their position to propagate their own agenda. They use history, literature, philosophy and the arts as a way to push morality and social values, when in fact these things should be taught by the parents, not the government.

 

In that light, as a free society, we should never intervene in the parent's care of the child in this regard, unless it poses a risk to the child, emotionally or physically. In other words if the parent's moral teachings are abusive, then we should intervene, if only because the child cannot intervene on their own behalf.

 

With that said, it would be nice if people could see the indoctrination they receive for what it is, but in most cases it is so thorough that we rarely question our beliefs in what is right or wrong. Capital punishment, corporal punishment, bigotry, racism, and greed are all intrinsically linked to our education.

 

The fact of the matter is that the children of today will be the adults of tomorrow. We have the opportunity to raise our children as individuals, but we can never do that so long as we believe that children are intrinsically sinful or that somehow they are born with a deficiency that requires moral and spiritual guidance to correct. If we simply taught are kids to not base their actions according to a moral compass, but rather how their actions effect other people, we could not only teach them to be beneficial to their community, but also allow them to grow up as they should and not as we choose them to be.

 

Aaron

 

edit- By the way Kate, that's lesson I was talking about, that we need to learn to recognize the capacity of each of our actions, and in so doing we can learn to live in harmony with others.

 

Thanks Aaron, but it's still clear as mud to me. Seems I have a 'thing' about this 'lesson'-business.

[Aetherous]

I have completely opposite views to the self, individual, life, and enjoyment denying Eastern (Buddhist) ones.

[Apech]

I have completely opposite views to the self, individual, life, and enjoyment denying Eastern (Buddhist) ones.

 

At the risk of becoming the new Vaj ... Buddhism is based on finding out how to be happy ... or as they would say happiness and the causes of happiness ... it is totally life affirming ... just thought I'd make that point ... i.e. don't listen to dodgy western buddhist teachers cos they ain't got it. The self exists in a conventional sense ... it is just that from an ultimate point of view the self and everything else has no independent existence. So ...

[Aetherous]

Apech,

 

If your view represented Buddhism as a whole, and if there weren't much more to it than that...it'd be fine. Like if we said, developing true compassion can lead to a more satisfying life...great. But that's not all there is to it.

 

I've seen Tibetans who are held in high esteem teaching ridiculous things, as well. I could get into it, but I think Buddhism has wasted enough of my time. No offense...just personal views.

[healingtouch]

Completely agree Jetsun. But this is not a problem with Eastern spirituality, but with spirituality in general as the teachings of spiritual gurus have been taken literally, therefore corrupted in the process, and turned into religion and law. Look at it this way, all the great spiritual leaders, Lao Tsu, Moses, Shakymuni, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, many others, have been rebels against the establishment, which needed a serious shaking. And every time, the establishment, thru its priests, came back and took those teachings and turned them onto their head and into an instrument of instilling obedience to the ruling classes once again. It's a normal cycle though, as every great guru will be seen by many as a money tree, priests and monks becoming attached to their position and power and fanatical in their devotion to the cause, teachings will be transformed into religion, and very often will be interpreted literally, and thus what is supposed to free someone from the clutches of materialism ends up actually oppressing them even more, killing the Divine spirit inside the individual in the process.

[Birch]

Or in some cases 'not literally enough'? If I can find those illuminated mushroom Jesus illustrations will post.

 

Edit: I'm not advocating mushrooms. Or religion for that matter.

 

http://psypressuk.com/2011/03/04/literary-review-the-mushroom-in-christian-art-by-john-a-rush/

Edited October 15, 2012 by -K-

[Aaron]

Hi Kate,

 

I think you're missing my point (not the point, just to clarify) which is that we should allow our children to grow up naturally. There are lessons they should learn, potty training comes to mind, but in regards to philosophy and religion, don't fill their minds with all that crap! Let them grow up to be who they want to be, don't tell them there's something wrong with them or that they NEED to do this or that in order to cure an imaginary flaw, rather love them, care for them, and provide the support they NEED and in so doing you can allow them to become who they should be, rather than who you want them to be. Children aren't possessions and shouldn't be treated as such. Oh and be aware of what they're learning in school, in many cases all the hard work you do at home can be and is reversed there.

 

Aaron

Edited October 16, 2012 by Aaron

[Birch]

Hi Kate,

I think you're missing my point (not the point, just to clarify) which is that we should allow our children to grow up naturally. There are lessons they should learn, potty training comes to mind, but in regards to philosophy and religion, don't fill their minds with all that crap! Let them grow up to be who they want to be, don't tell them there's something wrong with them or that they NEED to do this or that in order to cure an imaginary flaw, rather love them, care for them, and provide the support they NEED and in so doing you can allow them to become who they should be, rather than who you want them to be. Children aren't possessions and shouldn't be treated as such. Oh and be aware of what they're learning in school, in many cases all the hard work you do at home can be and is reversed there.

Aaron

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying Aaron:-)

I'm almost sure I've posted this before http://www.anthropologyofchildhood.usu.edu/

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[gendao]

Is it an accident that so many of the great artists and radical thinkers come from countries which value individuality? I was listening to an interview the other day with a Dutch Footballer who plays for the Japanese national team and he says that Japan never produce any really good centre forwards because their whole ethos is about the team and not about individuals, so they never have that man up front who is prepared to produce the bit of magic or individual arrogant brilliance to bring them to the higher level that other countries have. I know that is football but it can be applied to many other areas of life too.

But, what about all the great Japanese baseball players that have been imported into the MLB? How do you explain them, if you presuppose that their cultural collectivism impairs individual brilliance?

 

Well, I think this may be somewhat of a false dilemna. The truly great ones seem to transcend BOTH blind groupthink AND their individual egoic minds into a non-dual ZEN zone where subject (individual) merges with object (action).

"And when there is an opportunity, "I" do not hit, "it" hits all by itself." - Bruce Lee (rugged "individualist" rebel extraordinaire, lol)

Edited October 16, 2012 by vortex

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Birch]

And http://www.usu.edu/anthro/davidlancyspages/PDF's/Sample%20Publications/Learning%20'From%20Nobody'%20Final.pdf

[gendao]

The truth demands strict conformity and subservience to the truth...

Sometimes dogmas ceremonies and ritual just serve as a crutch until one knows the truth...

though some depend on the crutch forever rather than stand alone...

So, which one is more individualist?

And which one programs you to be an unquestioningly conformist follower (sheep)...or to walk your own uniquely individual path?

Edited October 16, 2012 by vortex