No holiness

[skydog]

I am writing a book. Just wrote this part now. Unedited though.

 

No holiness. Every Being is a being capable of being a so called "Buddha" or a so called "murderer" these labels are innaccurate like a rough map trying to describe a nation. If the so called "purest saint" was to have all their family killed and have to watch them suffer, It is perfectly acceptable that not only would thoughts and feelings of self preservation and self defence come but so would feelings of violence, anger and vengeance (which do not have to be acted on) These feelings exist for a certain reason, so we can say no, so we can draw boundaries.

 

Do we like to feel absolutely powerless, weak, attacked, helpless and victimised, perhaps such words cannot make us understand how it can actually feel to feel these kind of feelings and strong thought patterns, but people in these situations desperately want peace, empowerment, pride and justice.

 

When a charity fundraiser knocks on your door to solicit funds for your charity even though you may sympathise more than likely your not going to donate all your clothes, laptop, house and walk outside of your now donated house naked. lol. That is because to some degree we are all selfish and there is nothing wrong with that. In Zen Buddhism a contemplation is to contemplate the idea that everything we do is completely selfish and that we have no good bone in our body. When one thoroughly contemplates all our actions to some degree most of our actions come from some kind of "selfish" desire to be liked, better than or be good etc. However some people can take this contemplation too far and develop a nihilistic view of the world where there are no good people and everyone is selfish lol. This is equally conceptual as it is often hard to distinguish what is self and what is not self, also a lot of seemingly "selfish" action are in a way for the greater good for others.

 

Sexual Energy is not to be repressed and shoved away, neither is our anger they are all part of us. When an artist freely paints on a canvas, they freely paint not trying to hide parts of themselves or filter what is considered good or bad by others. Such labels are always innaccurate. Without sex we wouldnt exist, we wouldnt be alive. Most people desire certain things such as fame, money or a nice car, but deep down these desires are linked to sexuality and the desire to procreate. There is also nothing wrong with that. It is beautiful. A lot of so called "holy" people are repressed, denying their sexuality then expressing it in an outburst that is totally unnacceptable in their current society, or perhaps they repress their desire to make money so they would find other sneaky less honest ways to get money. One can conserve their sexual energy and abstain from ejaculation and this can be a powerful way to build sexual energy and use it for other great things but repressing this sexual energy can also be harmful to the bodys natural flow.

 

What is "pleasure" deep down pleasure involves some feelings of pride, anger, greed and lust. What makes one person feel pleasure will not make another feel pleasure, and what has the ability to make you feel pleasure changes with time for example, the same car will not make you feel pleasure again, it involves some elements of "I am more than/superior/better than others." However this neednt make one feel nihilistic or rejecting pleasure rather to be aware of what is going on inside.

 

In Celtic spirituality they were aware of this non absolute nature of good and evil but rather everything had some aspects of it and such absolute labels were not part of their culture. In the same way African Bushmen would deny holiness, teasing each other for being overly serious about spirituality and spiritual pride (holiness), when old men would shake during their ecstatic dance the young kids would mimic them in a hilarious way yet this was not frowned upon rather this was a great part of their spirituality the ability to stay silly and playful, however the idea that all spirituality should be silly is equally conceptual as sometimes one has to be serious. Boddhidharma the famous zen master was quoted to say "no holiness" to a king in a small act of defiance. The famous Taoist Philosopher Chuang Tzu told a small story about how it is saints and holy people who have messed up the world creating deep disharmony and imbalance by making people feel wrong about who they were. Interesting perspective.

 

When we are at a bar talking to the opposite sex, we dont just say "I have this sexual urge and I would like to follow this strange urge and procreate with you" as if this sexual urge is not part of us. We are our sexual urge. In the same way when we are angry we feel that someone else is responsible for our anger, we dont say to them "I have this weird anger and I would like to express this random anger onto you" as if this anger was not part of us. African spirituality accepts anger and embraces it, not taking it too far, but not denying it either. It is said that to cut off a persons anger is to cut off their masculinity. It is also said that a persons sexual energy is their creative energy and to destroy their sexual energy is to kill their creativity and flow. All Energies have their beauty, no Holiness.

[zanshin]

This idea of holiness is based on idea that some things are special and set apart and more in touch with being divine and good. But do things have to be what we think of as perfect to be divine? Sex can be beautiful, but most of our currently popular religions certainly don't consider it holy. We can enjoy comfort and beauty for it's own sake though; it's not always about feeling superior or a deep down desire to procreate. Maybe easiest to see in natural settings, if you sat out in nature near a gorgeous waterfall, can you see how you could just relax and feel pleasure for it's own sake? Is a delicious meal less enjoyable after that charity came knocking and told you about the starving people? Sort of a mental trap for pleasure to always be wrapped up with guilt. We need awareness which comes from the body, often we override the heart and body with the mind and we don't really even know what we enjoy or don't enjoy because we're in stuck analysis and ideas of what people should do rather than openly experiencing our real responses. The mind's role is to temper things, but not to create. Is holiness in the eye of the beholder or is holiness a matter of consensus? Maybe nothing is holy, maybe everything is.

[skydog]

yeh, or all holiness. words, concepts lol

[GrandmasterP]

In Xtianity the 'Holiness' movement is akin to pentecostalism but without the speaking in tongues.

Good start to the book Sinan, keep it up buddy.

For big sales though these days and going off the bestsellers on the bookshelves in Tesco you'll need to pop in some bondage plus S&M to spice it up.

[GrandmasterP]

_{You could call it}

_{'Fifty shades of Holiness'}

[skydog]

haha...not the start have written quite a lot more, usually when I get inspiration or am in a very good state..but I am acting on my joy sometimes I want to tell stories and make it light, funny, playful, silly, beautiful, put in some beautiful art, but sometimes I want to analyse or go deep, sometimes that is beautiful too, many traditions use spiritual debate as a way to enlightenment or zen koans.. but yeh cheers I will show you before anyways

[Ninjafro]

I don't mean to be a party pooper, but is this not much more than a book of conjecture? The information certainly can't be passed as objective proof; examples of a subset of African cultural norms don't disprove the principles of other religions and philosophical paradigms in which emptiness and celibacy are seen as sublime, "Holy" characteristics.

[GrandmasterP]

Yeah, good luck with that emptiness-celibacy schtick bro.

Sounds like a whole heap o' fun.

[skydog]

what is objective proof? Are all other religions right and philosophical paradigms right?

 

I accept your post dont get me wrong, this is mostly expression though, like poetry or a painting with words.

[zanshin]

But back a couple thousand years ago, people much more commonly recognized the "holy" aspects of sexuality and abundance. Why did the religious and philosophical paradigm change to see emptiness and celibacy as "holy." If we want objective proof first we'd have to concretelt define holiness and then decide how to measure it.. Words like "good" and "holy" are inherently subjective, yet still value in discussing them; we also can't really define the value. Another trap to think we can define and measure everything.

[Ninjafro]

Yeah, good luck with that emptiness-celibacy schtick bro.

Sounds like a whole heap o' fun.

 

I've been at it for my entire life. I've never even so much as smelled alcohol from close range. lol

 

 

what is objective proof? Are all other religions right and philosophical paradigms right?

 

I accept your post dont get me wrong, this is mostly expression though, like poetry or a painting with words.

 

I understand what you're doing now.

 

 

But back a couple thousand years ago, people much more commonly recognized the "holy" aspects of sexuality and abundance. Why did the religious and philosophical paradigm change to see emptiness and celibacy as "holy." If we want objective proof first we'd have to concretelt define holiness and then decide how to measure it.. Words like "good" and "holy" are inherently subjective, yet still value in discussing them; we also can't really define the value. Another trap to think we can define and measure everything.

 

I'm not saying that celibacy and emptiness are superior to sexual abundance and similar behaviors; my point was that there's no use in claiming that one is somehow objectively better than the other. While the African tribes sinansencer discussed embrace sexuality and anger, for example, plenty of other philosophical world-views do the exact opposite. How can you say that one is absolutely correct when juxtaposed against the other?

[zanshin]

I've been at it for my entire life. I've never even so much as smelled alcohol from close range. lol

 

I'm not saying that celibacy and emptiness are superior to sexual abundance and similar behaviors; my point was that there's no use in claiming that one is somehow objectively better than the other. While the African tribes sinansencer discussed embrace sexuality and anger, for example, plenty of other philosophical world-views do the exact opposite. How can you say that one is absolutely correct when juxtaposed against the other?

 

I don't think he claimed either was better. How can you say that one is correct? You can't measure it so this is how holiness came about it. We can't prove it objectively, so people claim their way is right because it is from god and that makes the idea of holiness. A third way is experiential, which goes with the idea of actually feeling what your response is rather than thinking about what you should be doing or what people should do. And then our experiences can contradict when juxtaposed against each other, yet both be correct.

[Ninjafro]

I don't think he claimed either was better. How can you say that one is correct? You can't measure it so this is how holiness came about it. We can't prove it objectively, so people claim their way is right because it is from god and that makes the idea of holiness. A third way is experiential, which goes with the idea of actually feeling what your response is rather than thinking about what you should be doing or what people should do. And then our experiences can contradict when juxtaposed against each other, yet both be correct.

 

I think you and I are essentially saying the same thing.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Ninjafro

[GrandmasterP]

Good man yerself sir, we are teetotal vegetarian folk here too.

Celibacy though, no thank you.

[Ninjafro]

Good man yerself sir, we are teetotal vegetarian folk here too.

Celibacy though, no thank you.

 

I can dig it. Celibacy isn't for everybody.

[Clarity]

What if we consider 'holiness' to mean 'connected to the source' or connected to the whole? Then there is no judgment about what is holy and what isn't. Unholy would simply mean that there is a lack of connection to the source, not connected to the whole. This would be a new definition of holiness that is not predicated upon judgment and misinformation as a result of religious thinking and dogma.

[skydog]

I hope no one minds but I welcome critiscm and may edit some parts of this stuff, I respect everyones opinions on the tao bums one thing I like about it is that there are many different people with different but equally useful opinions.

 

One thing I will write on the pleasure bit is how our desires will keep coming but this is the way the universe grows and expands our desires our not meant to stop, our desires are the universes desires and we must follow our heart.

[zanshin]

What if we consider 'holiness' to mean 'connected to the source' or connected to the whole? Then there is no judgment about what is holy and what isn't. Unholy would simply mean that there is a lack of connection to the source, not connected to the whole. This would be a new definition of holiness that is not predicated upon judgment and misinformation as a result of religious thinking and dogma.

 

How would we measure what is connected to the source or who is qualified to decide that? We still need to define "source" and "connected." I really liked it when I first read it, but sort of same problem.

 

But thinking on the first post, about a new car. A new car seems like a materialistic, perhaps even frivolous thing. But why couldn't it be holy?. If we have a life that involves a car then often we spend a lot of time in that car. Maybe we transport our family and friends who we have loving conections with so it does seem important to have some good safety features. We have obligations to meet so we need a reliable car. And if you think about the history of cars, there's been a lot of engineering and innovation in the past century, sort of amazing. A car can reflect who we are, maybe you have a "green" car, maybe a V8 turns you on, maybe a cool sound system makes you feel relaxed and happy. And again is awareness, maybe an old car you just drive and don't enjoy or think about it, but it sure is a pain when they break down. And with as much time as we spend in cars we should at least be aware to keep them clean and well maintained. Maybe I'm just rambling, but maybe a connection is awareness, when we bring our attention to ordinary things they really can be special.

Edited November 6, 2012 by zanshin

[GrandmasterP]

Oh boy so I feel guilty. I have never washed our white van ever. It is five years old. The guys who service it blast it over for me once a year, same with the little red car.

They are pretty dirty inside and out. It's one of those things I never think of doing yet around here to some folk washing the car is a regular Sunday afternoon ritual. Mechanically both vehicles are top notch but cosmetically they are sheds.

[Clarity]

How would we measure what is connected to the source or who is qualified to decide that? We still need to define "source" and "connected." I really liked it when I first read it, but sort of same problem.

 

Well, that is the rub, isn't it? Because one could easily make the statement that there is nothing but holiness or wholeness. So to say that we are 'disconnected' or 'unholy' would refer to our state of mind and not the reality of Life. Without the action of mind, there would be no talk of holy or unholy, instead things would just be.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[GrandmasterP]

Nope, ideas are just ideas neither better nor worse. Just ideas, dreams dreamt by a dreamer, all of 'em.

It's that illusory separatedness looking out thinking, "this is me, that is wrong, I am right"...

As causes these false distinctions.

Stuff just is, and so are we.

[Stosh]

Sure dreams would be dreamt by a dreamer, and they could be

called illusory since they could not be directly proven to exist outside the mind of the dreamer

but that would not preclude that they have an element of reality since dreams

can be made to influence objective phenomena via actions.

 

the last three of the four lines together are self contradictory GMP

line four must not be right --(or wrong)

if 'stuff' and 'we'- individually and 'right-ness' are false distinctions like it says in line three about line two

[GrandmasterP]

Yep it's a paradox for sure.

[skydog]

some ideas are better than other ideas... follow your heart, mind, spirit IF these procure the better ways!

 

right back at cha