Religion is the poison of Spirituality

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Aaron]

I suppose you and I have very differing opinions here, et...

 

 

I do believe that there is an ultimate authority which is the bringer of all truth(s), and furthermore that we are all this being, but are behind an illusory separation from this divine self. Until our illusions are lifted, and/or we are reunited with the whleness of the untimate authority, we cannot truly possess knowing of true truths, only the elements of our physical senses.

 

WE CAN know what our senses tell us, literally, but we CANNOT know what our senses were truly derrived from, except in comparison to those senses themselves, whioch is in and of itself dilusional.

 

Religion cannot tell us what s true and false, nor can it tell us what is right and wrong, good or evil, or how to distinguish "God" from "Devil".

 

In my spiritual beliefs and practices, I've done away with "versus". Duality is not much good for anythign except descriptive writing

 

 

God versus Devil? NO! Balance and Harmony of Tao! Black will look white when viewed from a darker blackness... God will look like the devil from the view of greater good than god.

 

 

 

Again, wordplay and no essence, as "greater than god" is a verbal fallacy in contrast to teh concept that god is the greatest good. "est" a finalization, does not exist except in transition in the contrast o eternity and infinite.

 

 

If god is infinite good, then god is never stationary, always moving, always becoming "more good", and that means that god must make progress, which suggests that there is more than god, which is verally contradictive to "god is the greatest".

 

 

 

So obviously ,i am to throw all of that away and not tie knots in my mind with the silliness of duality.

 

Very well said. I would be hard pressed to say it any better. but I would add that is important too remember that right and wrong are constructs of the mind, in reality there is no right or wrong there just is. when you can understand that, then you can begin to see how you are related to everything in creation. For it's not just that you are God, but that you are everything that has ever existed and will ever exist. God is just a name we give something that we can never really understand. however to fall into the trap of non duality means that you fail to see how you are connected to everything. For duality is very much a part of this world that we live in. it isn't just here so that we can have a perceptual context in which to view things, but it is here so that we can have an emotional connection to those things that are around us. This is also the trap of suffering, and why Buddhist feel that it is necessary to see through duality in order to be done with suffering. But we can never really be done with suffering (or duality) for in order to be done with suffering you must also be done with pleasure. the fact of the matter is that everything in existence has a purpose, even if we don't understand that purpose. in many cases we are not meant to understand this purpose. this is why it Lao Tzu tells us that the Tao that can be spoken of it is not the unmentionable or original tao. oftentimes the best we can do is just understand what is within ourselves for their the answer lies. the reason I say religion is the poison of spirituality is because it directs us without when we should be looking within.

 

Aaron

Edited December 10, 2012 by Aaron

[thelerner]

I think the world will end on Dec 22, 2012

and the ONLY thing that will SURVIVE

IS THIS FRICKIN THREAD

 

 

 

33 35 pages and going strong.

Edited December 10, 2012 by thelerner

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

ET: Isnt dualistic balance Absolute Harmony? If i were to desire any absolutes, i would be missing the one i am experiencing every moment of every moment of every moment! Why worry? It's jsut semantics anyways.

 

 

Wu Wei is a good way to let go of the worries.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

because they are unable or unwilling to understand that it really and truly does not matter.

 

It doesnt matter if we are pure holy righteousness or pure unholy evil, ir does not matter if we live for one hundred trillion eons or live for one hundred trillion nanoseconds, it does not matter if our loved ones were murdered or dyed naturally, the universe isnt going to stop and worry about any one little thing, as all things are the whole ONE thing and it will continue on in spite of EVERYTHING.

 

 

At this point, argument, war, conflict... it seems so besides the point.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Hello Recep Ivedik,

I'm going to point out that your method of addressing my post was not to come up to me with open hands, but to draw a sword and start swinging. You need to work on that.

Dear Aaron,

I was discussing a different topic with someone else. You quoted my sentences and started a new discussion. It is you not me drawing a sword and start swinging. I am just defending your moves and counter attack if you use fencing terminology. Everybody is right when they attack me but I am not right if I defend myself. This is a textbook definition of double standard.

 

A few clarifications, not all devsirme were castrated, only those who were to work in harems. Many Devsirme ended up working in the sex trade in bath houses, something I noticed you didn't mention. The price of a light skinned boy could be 10-100 times that of other slaves. They chose devsirme for their looks, hence the reason parents disfiguring their son's faces. I have studied history and I know that many crusaders went to Israel poor men and came back very rich. I also know many men who went on Jihads came back rich as well. My point is that men wage war in the name of religion, but the reasons then and now are relatively the same, the pursuit of material wealth. This is why I say religion, specifically organized religious orders, are the poison of spirituality.

You are mixing Devsirme and ordinary slaves. Again, Devsirme was for elite personnel of Janissary and administrative posts. Of course, I am not defending slavery here. But slavery ended in late 19th century all over the world. You are evaluating the history with today's values which does not make sense at all. Men used organized religious orders for their interest. That is correct. But this is not organized religious orders' fault, this is crime of men.

 

Now this isn't the thread to discuss this, if we want to discuss the practices of the Ottomans I would be happy to, just start a new thread. I don't want to continue this discussion here, because it has is a sensitive topic and not necessarily in line with the intention of the original post. If you want to reply to what I've posted, please feel free to cut and paste it into a new thread I am starting in the off-topic section on the Ottoman Empire and I'll be happy to respond.

I do not need to start a thread about Ottoman Empire history. The reason is simple: When I look to Ottoman history, I see humanity. When I look to Western world history, I see destruction. If you want to start a thread about Western World (EU & USA) history and the evil practices, you are free. Just two examples for you. The Jews of Spain escaped from Inquisition court, because they were threatened to accept Christianity first and burned at a stake. In 1492, Jews of Spain come to Istanbul, Ottoman Empire. They were welcomed, and the existing Jewish community hosted them. A second example, starting from 1400s to end of 1600s there were a witch hunt in Europe and America. Tens of thousands of women were burned blaming they were witch. The mentally ill people who are treated by psychiatrists today (paranoids, schizophrenics, etc.) were also burned because they were thought to be slaves of demons. In Ottoman Empire, in the same era, these mentally ill people were treated with classical Turkish music in special hospitals. If you want to see humanity, read our history.

 

Also, I said explicitly that nothing justifies these kinds of atrocities, but that without understanding the underlying causes there is no way to really stop them from happening.

I do not agree your diagnosis. I do not agree with your treatment too. I agree with your wish.

 

I had no malice in my heart when I started this thread, rather you responded emotionally to what I said without understanding the context, which is that many people use religion to justify their actions. It happens on this forum and elsewhere. I am a firm believer that if a man is only acting righteous to appease a higher power, then his actions are worthless. It is only when someone does an act out of compassion, with not motive other than compassion, that his actions are virtuous.

I have no malice in my heart too. I understood your context very well and gave the necessary reply. I always talk with reference to Wikipedia based facts not emotions. If you read my post you will see the same attitude. If talking about truths is being emotional, then I am emotional (In fact I am not). No objections about your evaluation about the man acting according to power vs. compassion.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Recep Ivedik

[Marblehead]

I just prefer to hold on to the idea that ultimately each has the freedom to choose... if thats not the case it really doesn't matter does it?

It is oftentimes boring reading ET but every now and again he says something valid that we all should keep in mind. This is one of those times. (And no, it doesn't matter if one is a religious believer or not.)

[Marblehead]

Regardless of who said to do it, or *"WHY"* you did it, no one but YOU are to blame for the actions you willingly undertake.

While I do not disagree with what you said here I do think it is important to try to understand the "why" of the action. But yes, the actor still holds responsibility for the action.

[Marblehead]

Balance is one thing... harmony is another... is it just semantics? then why so many tell something about it and get into confrontations alliances etc...

No, not just semantics. There is a difference between balance and harmony. I have spoke to this before. Balance is an end - harmony is a continuing process.

[Stosh]

No, not just semantics. There is a difference between balance and harmony. I have spoke to this before. Balance is an end - harmony is a continuing process.

 

Though I wouldnt have chosen those associations myself ,but , going along with it... what is the point of either trying for balance or working out a harmony ... as you see it?

[Marblehead]

Though I wouldnt have chosen those associations myself ,but , going along with it... what is the point of either trying for balance or working out a harmony ... as you see it?

Fair question. Simplfied; balance is death, harmony is living. This is because of the concept that all is in constant flux. Balance equals stagnation and stagnation leads to death.

[Stosh]

Hmmmmn, dynamic equilibrium is a balance of sorts ,, still deathly?

[Marblehead]

Hmmmmn, dynamic equilibrium is a balance of sorts ,, still deathly?

We could start another thread on this concept (balance vs harmony) if you wish.

 

However, in reply to the question, isn't that a contradiction?: dynamic equilibrium? Or are you speaking to, even though all is dynamic all remains equal? Only the equal sign takes different positions over time?

[Stosh]

Dynamic equlibrium in a sense that one puts money into an account and withdraws money from the account and the net change over time is zero. The difference Im asking about ,is whether you see it that there should be as a positive goal- net change or ...not. If a person were to be trying to have no net influence to a system Id see it as in keeping with Tao principles , but on the other hand -change is inevitable so fighting change over time would be contra indicated as well.

 

If you can phrase the idea in a threadworthy form you can shift this there.,, I was just making a brief digression in a 36 page thread.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Stosh]

oh wanted to add a side note ... I too think that its more than just semantics...

 

I see the conceptry and wording similar but I was trying to tease out whether Mh was actually making a different assertion

or not.

Things would be so much easier to discuss is we were all using the same dictionary- terminology , I suspect half the discrepencies folks have isnt really based on any substantial disagreement.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Marblehead]

I like you... every now and again you actually understand what I state...

Hehehe. We sure are being covert with our compliments, aren't we?

[ShenLung]

I agree with you agreeing with him.

 

I think the West benefits from its general lack of historical knowledge and particularly history based passions. Take England, not only did we fight a war of independence with them they actually burnt down our Capital on August 24, 1814. Probably 99 out of 100 Americans are blissfully unaware of it. Despite the fury of WWII, enemies rather quickly became allies.

 

There is a poison to hanging on to the past so passionately it brings on new wars and discord.

 

John Paul Jones was a Scotsman, just saying ... In all seriousness, I think the number is closer to one in 10000; people are shocked when I tell them about it, and I get the sense that a great number still don't believe it. The first of my ancestors to arrive on this continent's shores was in the employ of King George, and the only reason that I am here today is that he was not a christian, and on the occasion of Washington's surprise raid across the Delaware river, he was sober enough to retreat. This makes july 4th a very interesting holiday for me, but I do celebrate it; it is the celebration of the birth of an idea, an idea that I firmly believe in.

I think that people have to come to grips with the fact that they have no influence on the past, but what shape the future takes is rooted in what they do and feel today.

I have chastised Recep before, not because I disagreed with him in principle; I believe he was correct in that case - but on account of how he presented his case. The western mind is rebellious in nature, and must be persuaded by sound argument in terms that it can understand, rather than commanded by dictate. This takes time and patience, and I believe that he is developing more patience. Perhaps we all should.

[Marblehead]

Dynamic equlibrium in a sense that one puts money into an account and withdraws money from the account and the net change over time is zero. The difference Im asking about ,is whether you see it that there should be as a positive goal- net change or ...not. If a person were to be trying to have no net influence to a system Id see it as in keeping with Tao principles , but on the other hand -change is inevitable so fighting change over time would be contra indicated as well.

 

If you can phrase the idea in a threadworthy form you can shift this there.,, I was just making a brief digression in a 36 page thread.

Oh, okay. This thread has been taken off topic so many times one more time won't matter all that much.

 

Your bank account is a good example. But aren't you saving up for retirement? There should be a net gain, shouldn't there?

 

On the cosmic level. There was the Big Bang. The universe is expanding. However, as I enjoy saying, every thing that is, is, always has been, and always will be. But there is still a net gain because more things are being established into a more durable form.

 

As we walk along our path of live things should get easier for us as we gain wisdom through the knowledge we gain through many sources. Should this be a goal? Yes and no. If we set it as a goal we are apt to miss out on many living experiences; if we set no goal we won't even know which direction we should walk along our path.

 

Indeed, if we could walk through life and leave no footprint, that would be great. But I think this is not possible. So the footprints we leave should be the least destructive as possible. And perhaps even leave a trail for others who migh have gotten lost on their path.

 

So, from your perspective, yes, it would be Taoist to leave no footprint, no change from the status quo. I just wonder how much living a person would have done if they were able to do that though.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[zerostao]

I just wonder how much living a person would have done if they were able to do that though.

i reckon that these are the ones who truly live. joyously and fiercely, even