What practical things can we do to facilitate interfaith harmony?

[gendao]

I don't think the goal is interfaith harmony.

 

I think the goal is finding the truth underlying different faiths.

 

Although doing that, might also accomplish the former as a side effect...

[Vajrasattva]

Smile more, acceptance & truly awaken your energy.

 

: )

[Stigweard]

I would have people of other faiths get together and meet each other. It seems a lot of disharmony is based on ignorance. Once people come to understand that most people are "good" people, regardless of racial, ethnic, religious differences, then the walls just melt away.

Anything that tends to get fossilized tends to corrupt the human spirit. Whether it is our own dogmatic beliefs, scientific materialism, religious or governmental institutions--- the tendencies are the same.

 

Indeed ... one of the discussion groups I was in as part of the Summit included a Catholic lady who told us about a interschool exchange they had been a part of. The linked up a catholic and islamic school in Melbourne, every other day the students would visit the other school. She relayed how amazing it was to watch the students go from suspicious hostility, to curiosity, to where they were exchanging email addresses with comments like, "Wow, I didn't realise they were just like us"

 

 

One other source I would highly recommend is Wilhelm Reich's "Mass Psychology of Fascism" is which he defines the problems of emotional suppression that lead to what I have been referring to in my previous posts.

 

I don't believe for one minute that having groups of religious leaders meet causes the walls to come down. Just does not happen. Religion is by its very nature tribal and therefor divisive.

 

ralis

 

I appreciate you perspective Ralis, however if you had been at this summit and experienced the wonderment of seeing the leaders of traditionally opposing faiths sharing dialogue and entering the process of a united future you would have changed your opinion in an instant.

[ZenStatic]

Problem? You take what I said out of context. I was merely stating a fact about how the ordinary citizen of Tibet was treated. Read for yourself! There are a lot of Tibetan wannabes and even some scholars that never question this fact. I live in a town full of them. This has nothing to do with any experience of spiritually. Anyone who has some degree of spiritual awakening is going to question the behavior that I have pointed out.

 

As for being a peer, what I meant was being treated with respect. Tibetan Lamas treat students like heathens. While at the same time they want us to feel sorry for them for what happened to their country. (Tibet was always a part of China and never independent). They ask for money to keep the same monastic culture intact. At the same time, feeding spiritual crumbs to their followers, while promising enlightenment in 7 lifetimes.

 

Do you know of any Lama that works at a real job? No, they just meditate and go on retreat. The only exception that I am aware of is Namkai Norbu.

The culture of Tibet was even worse than the European "Dark Ages". In Europe there were three classes until the enlightenment. Aristocratic, priesthood and serfs. Tibet was monastic i.e, Lamaism and serfs. I don't know why this is so difficult for most to understand.

 

The Dalai Lama admitted all of this publicly and has refused to continue his lineage!

 

One good reference is Donald Lopez. His book "Prisoners of Shamabalah" is a good place to start.

 

If you are going to debate me, I suggest not taking me out of context. To state that I read in lieu of some kind of spiritual experience is proceeding from an incorrect conclusion.

 

My point is that religion corrupts the human spirit and impedes real progress to provide for human everyday needs. Religion thrives on the quest for power, while keeping followers in a state of fear and superstition.

 

I would like to share a recent conversation I had with a friend of mine. I asked him why Ganten Tulku was putting so much money into the restoration of some special monastery in Bhutan, while at the same time people in the region needed medical care and had other immediate needs. He said that monasteries are where the Dharma is dispensed and the needs of people are irrelevant. Seems to me that monasteries are where people go to worship Dharma kings as opposed to understanding what life is really about. Was the church hierarchy in Europe with their massive cathedrals any different?

 

 

 

ralis

 

Im gonna leave alone your baltant mischaracterizations of so many things in Tiebt, because were talking about spirituality, not government. Most monks, gurus, masters, etc; they don't work "real" jobs. In ANY religion. Their job is to pass on the knowledge they have to help others further down their path.

 

The Dalai Lama never refused to continue his lineage. He has stated that he feels his office has outlived its purpose, and should not continue on after his death. And you wanted to talk about things out of context.

 

So much of what you say is completely subjective, depending on what one would consider actual needs. Bandying about your bullshit terms and irrelevant stories in no way changes anything. There are people that believe in something. YOU will never understand why they do, how they do, and what it does for them, because you have closed your mind to anything good coming from religion. The point is, since this thread is on interfaith harmony, what do you bring to the table when all you do is spew hate of all religions?

[ralis]

Im gonna leave alone your baltant mischaracterizations of so many things in Tiebt, because were talking about spirituality, not government. Most monks, gurus, masters, etc; they don't work "real" jobs. In ANY religion. Their job is to pass on the knowledge they have to help others further down their path.

 

The Dalai Lama never refused to continue his lineage. He has stated that he feels his office has outlived its purpose, and should not continue on after his death. And you wanted to talk about things out of context.

 

So much of what you say is completely subjective, depending on what one would consider actual needs. Bandying about your bullshit terms and irrelevant stories in no way changes anything. There are people that believe in something. YOU will never understand why they do, how they do, and what it does for them, because you have closed your mind to anything good coming from religion. The point is, since this thread is on interfaith harmony, what do you bring to the table when all you do is spew hate of all religions?

 

If you are going to debate me, then you must not attack me personally. That is not debating facts, but to cover your lack of references and inability to cite historical facts. I suggest you look into the history of Tibet. I happen to be a very good friend of a Tibetan refugee and he will cite the same problems I have stated.

 

Start by reading Donald Lopez who is a Tibetan scholar.

 

Also read Joseph Campbell's excellent 3 volume set "The Masks of God".

 

Stop the emotional attacks on me and asking an open ended question as if to imply that I am spewing hate on all religions. I question religions and their motive. I do not make emotional, irrational arguments that are filled with hate and innuendo. You make a serious error in judgment of me. Stop being irrational and proceeding from incorrect emotional conclusions about what I wrote. Examine the evidence for yourself. If and only if, you are capable of such a process.

 

 

 

In general, I seriously doubt that most humans even know why they are involved in a certain religion or belief system. Will one come to question one's precious beliefs? In general, no! It takes a lot of courage to examine ones historical context of belief in a system i.e, religion or otherwise. For example, the monastic system in Tibet took kids when they were very young. Did these kids have a choice? Can they have the freedom to question what they have been involved in most of their lives?

 

BTW, the Dalai Lama said he is not coming back as the head of the Tibetan people. His office is the lineage.

 

One must understand the root of disharmony i.e, religious, before there can be any kind of bringing together.

 

For your information the government of Tibet was a theocracy. Not secular in any way shape or form.

 

What I am trying to point out as a response to this thread, is that there will never be harmony among disparate systems (religions) as long as the adherents to these systems continue without examining their beliefs. This applies to all belief systems.

 

 

ralis

Edited February 22, 2009 by ralis

[Stigweard]

Ralis, it is really wonderful that you have such an educated insight into the affairs of religions.

 

It must be kept in mind though that one of the root causes of conflict of any type is when people try and prove each other wrong. Religions aren't necessarily 'wrong', they are merely a reflection of humanities stage of evolution.

 

The truth be told, people are more willing to learn and grow under the spirit of appreciation than the spirit of disapproval.

 

There is much good and right about religions, they are an expression of humanities quest for the divine and that alone makes them deserving of respect and celebration.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Stigweard

[thelerner]

Hmnn, nasty religious arguments on the 'Facilitating Interfaith Harmony Post' didn't start til the second page.

 

Interesting.

 

 

[ralis]

Ralis, it is really wonderful that you have such an educated insight into the affairs of religions.

 

It must be kept in mind though that one of the root causes of conflict of any type is when people try and prove each other wrong. Religions aren't necessarily 'wrong', they are merely a reflection of humanities stage of evolution.

 

The truth be told, people are more willing to learn and grow under the spirit of appreciation than the spirit of disapproval.

 

There is much good and right about religions, they are an expression of humanities quest for the divine and that alone makes them deserving of respect and celebration.

 

Yes, there is some good. However, I can't excuse what has been done for thousands of years in the name of religion. Holy wars, crusades and inquisitions to name the most atrocious. Even the Third Reich was religious in nature. I forget what was on the belt buckles of the SS, but it said something about being "warriors for God". Hitler expressed that is was his duty as a Christian to "kill the Jews".

 

How about in today's world. We have the Christian religious right in the U.S. wanting to fight the so called Islamic fascists. Also there have been calls by fundamentalist groups for the U.S. to be returned by force of law to it's so called Christian roots. (That is a false ideology). The Saudi Kingdom being held together by Islamic law, where be headings are held every Friday for breaking Islamic law. These are a few examples. It seems to me that most religious ideology is still in the stone age. Is this a quest for the divine? If that is the best humanity can do then the human species is in sorry shape.

 

Maybe a few want religious harmony, but most do not.

 

ralis

 

Just found the SS belt buckle inscription: "Gott Mit Uns" (may god be with us)

 

Rather sinister isn't it.

Edited February 22, 2009 by ralis

[Stigweard]

Yes, there is some good. However, I can't excuse what has been done for thousands of years in the name of religion. Holy wars, crusades and inquisitions to name the most atrocious. Even the Third Reich was religious in nature. I forget what was on the belt buckles of the SS, but it said something about being "warriors for God". Hitler expressed that is was his duty as a Christian to "kill the Jews".

 

How about in today's world. We have the Christian religious right in the U.S. wanting to fight the so called Islamic fascists. Also there have been calls by fundamentalist groups for the U.S. to be returned by force of law to it's so called Christian roots. (That is a false ideology). The Saudi Kingdom being held together by Islamic law, where be headings are held every Friday for breaking Islamic law. These are a few examples. It seems to me that most religious ideology is still in the stone age. Is this a quest for the divine? If that is the best humanity can do then the human species is in sorry shape.

 

Maybe a few want religious harmony, but most do not.

 

ralis

 

Just found the SS belt buckle inscription: "Gott Mit Uns" (may god be with us)

 

Rather sinister isn't it.

 

Everything you say is true. However progress toward the ideal will not occur whilst the finger-pointing of 'you are wrong' endures. If someone is told they are wrong then they will only further entrench themselves in the feeling they are right. I have lived through the maturation of 3 teenagers so I know all too well the truth of this

 

These rifts will not heal whilst we stand on one side of the chasm and criticize the actions of those on 'the other side'. The truth is we are all one humanity and each and every one of us is responsible in some way for the current state of affairs.

[dwai]

Everything you say is true. However progress toward the ideal will not occur whilst the finger-pointing of 'you are wrong' endures. If someone is told they are wrong then they will only further entrench themselves in the feeling they are right. I have lived through the maturation of 3 teenagers so I know all too well the truth of this

 

These rifts will not heal whilst we stand on one side of the chasm and criticize the actions of those on 'the other side'. The truth is we are all one humanity and each and every one of us is responsible in some way for the current state of affairs.

 

To add a few notes about the Tibet/Buddhism/Fascism allegations by Rallis, with no intention of stoking this fire (of discord on this thread further), but with the intention of putting things in perspective.

 

Most of the World (until the advent of the 18-19th century and the Industrial Revolution) has needed a King/Queen/Ruler to give structure to geographic regions (states, fiefs, Nations, etc). Why would Tibet be any different?

 

You have to understand (Rallis, and those Tibet scholars he is quoting) that you are juxtaposing your Western, Modern/Post-modern ideals and concepts onto a historical period and passing a judgment (it is known as anachronism, in technical terms). The judgement will only make sense to you and your peers, who share the ideas and concepts with you (of Democracy, Western model of Nationhood and ethics that are direct offspring of Christian thought).

 

If you put yourself in the shoes of the rulers of Tibet and the people (who you claimed were suppressed and subdued), you might find that for a yak-herder at 16,000 feet above the ground, your model of nationhood, democracy, etc might make absolutely no sense (even today). The Dalai Lama provided a political and religio-spiritual control system for your simple yak-herder.

 

The Lamas were the bureaucracy and selection into this fold was partly elective (the yak-herder might have chosen to send one of his sons to a monastery to become a lama) and partly predictive (as in reincarnation of this lama or that lama in a common household). The Bureaucracy provided structure, law, order to the society. Where is the case of oppression?

 

Okay, so your yak-herder didn't get to choose his Dalai Lama or any of the other Lamas who wielded positions of power. But the society worked on the model of Dharma, following a valid philosophical guideline (you will find almost all Dharmic societies work on this model).

 

No one telling the masses that if you don't accept so and so as your saviour you will go to hell and burn there for eternity. The society and it's rules ensured that certain value aspects of that philosophical system be implemented irrelevant of whether an individual member understands or follows it. But isn't that the case in the West as well?

 

As for the Buddhist monk treating you like crap before initiating you -- perhaps you were unlucky. Perhaps your attitude was questionable (there's a saying that an empty cup is easy to fill) or perhaps the teacher was testing your passion for the teaching. Eastern teachings and teachers are often that way (that's a way to separate the fluff from the stuff).

 

Admittedly your reading of religion is rooted in those that you have experienced in your native culture. If you are a Westerner with a Christian or Judeao-abrahamic background, what you consider a religion and what a Hindu or Buddhist considers a Dharma are dramatically different.

[ralis]

To add a few notes about the Tibet/Buddhism/Fascism allegations by Rallis, with no intention of stoking this fire (of discord on this thread further), but with the intention of putting things in perspective.

 

Most of the World (until the advent of the 18-19th century and the Industrial Revolution) has needed a King/Queen/Ruler to give structure to geographic regions (states, fiefs, Nations, etc). Why would Tibet be any different?

 

You have to understand (Rallis, and those Tibet scholars he is quoting) that you are juxtaposing your Western, Modern/Post-modern ideals and concepts onto a historical period and passing a judgment (it is known as anachronism, in technical terms). The judgement will only make sense to you and your peers, who share the ideas and concepts with you (of Democracy, Western model of Nationhood and ethics that are direct offspring of Christian thought).

 

If you put yourself in the shoes of the rulers of Tibet and the people (who you claimed were suppressed and subdued), you might find that for a yak-herder at 16,000 feet above the ground, your model of nationhood, democracy, etc might make absolutely no sense (even today). The Dalai Lama provided a political and religio-spiritual control system for your simple yak-herder.

 

The Lamas were the bureaucracy and selection into this fold was partly elective (the yak-herder might have chosen to send one of his sons to a monastery to become a lama) and partly predictive (as in reincarnation of this lama or that lama in a common household). The Bureaucracy provided structure, law, order to the society. Where is the case of oppression?

 

Okay, so your yak-herder didn't get to choose his Dalai Lama or any of the other Lamas who wielded positions of power. But the society worked on the model of Dharma, following a valid philosophical guideline (you will find almost all Dharmic societies work on this model).

 

No one telling the masses that if you don't accept so and so as your saviour you will go to hell and burn there for eternity. The society and it's rules ensured that certain value aspects of that philosophical system be implemented irrelevant of whether an individual member understands or follows it. But isn't that the case in the West as well?

 

As for the Buddhist monk treating you like crap before initiating you -- perhaps you were unlucky. Perhaps your attitude was questionable (there's a saying that an empty cup is easy to fill) or perhaps the teacher was testing your passion for the teaching. Eastern teachings and teachers are often that way (that's a way to separate the fluff from the stuff).

 

Admittedly your reading of religion is rooted in those that you have experienced in your native culture. If you are a Westerner with a Christian or Judeao-abrahamic background, what you consider a religion and what a Hindu or Buddhist considers a Dharma are dramatically different.

 

 

Please state examples of societies that work on Dharmic principles. I doubt their respective governments run on these principles. Define your vague statement "following a valid philosophical guideline". Philosophical guidelines are just that and have no basis on which to govern anyone.

 

My point transcends an East vs. West view and is only concerned with the treatment of individuals.

 

Abuse is abuse no matter what philosophical guidelines are used.

 

Denying one an education is abuse. The Lamas were educated and the common people were not.

 

Keeping one in superstition is abuse.

 

Theocracy is still theocracy no matter what culture it is imposed on.

 

Not all Tibetans are yak herders.

 

A religious spiritual control system as you have stated is a control system based in theology and not real law. That is not a real government. Just a theocracy based in feudalism. It is an error to govern people from the aspect of a higher cause, such as reincarnate Lamas and Dalai Lamas as Gods incarnate.

 

The Dalai Lama was considered a God incarnate. Still is. If he was really a compassionate God, he would have made certain that all were treated justly and fairly. Not in a theocratic context. I guess Gods have a hard time coming down to our level.

 

As for Lamas treating students like heathens, let me say this. I have never believed for one minute that they have special insight into anyone's soul as you state. As you stated "testing my passion for the teaching". The teachings they give are nothing more than outer teachings that lead nowhere. I found that along time ago. I was always offended by the prostrations required to receive teachings.

 

If you look at the history of theocratic governments, then you will understand where I am coming from.

 

I am using the failed Tibetan system as an example. There are many more that can be expounded upon.

 

One other note is that women (pink revolution) in India are rebelling against men who have been physically abusing them in the name of a deity. Ram or something to that effect. I guess not all people are in love with spiritually correct rules.

 

 

 

ralis

Edited February 23, 2009 by ralis

[ZenStatic]

As for Lamas treating students like heathens, let me say this. I have never believed for one minute that they have special insight into anyone's soul as you state. As you stated "testing my passion for the teaching". The teachings they give are nothing more than outer teachings that lead nowhere. I found that along time ago. I was always offended by the prostrations required to receive teachings.

 

You prove here for all to see what the problem is. YOU had a bad experience, and have chosen to hold a grudge against that entire religious system for it. You call the teachings superstition and bullshit; and then you proceed to call yourself offended in offering due respect to a teacher. So sad.

 

Oh, and if you want to reference scholars for things, you should at least try those that actually are from that culture or one close to it. Campbell was far from well schooled on the east, and your buddy Lopez, obviously has issue since he loves to refer to the Theosophical society nuts so often in conjunction with Tibetan Buddhism.

 

Oh, and for the record; a bodhisattva is NOT a "god". At least learn a bit about something before you try to tell lies about it.

[ralis]

You prove here for all to see what the problem is. YOU had a bad experience, and have chosen to hold a grudge against that entire religious system for it. You call the teachings superstition and bullshit; and then you proceed to call yourself offended in offering due respect to a teacher. So sad.

 

Oh, and if you want to reference scholars for things, you should at least try those that actually are from that culture or one close to it. Campbell was far from well schooled on the east, and your buddy Lopez, obviously has issue since he loves to refer to the Theosophical society nuts so often in conjunction with Tibetan Buddhism.

 

Oh, and for the record; a bodhisattva is NOT a "god". At least learn a bit about something before you try to tell lies about it.

 

You neither understand arguments or know how to respond without emotion. I am stating facts about all religious suppression. This is not about holding grudges. A lot of people hold the view that Tibetan Lamas see westerners as heathens. Just because they come to the west and set up shop, does not automatically grant them respect. Respect is not automatically given if one is wearing robes and sits on a throne. Has this Dharmic religious view made an effect on peoples lives in the west? Only time will tell.

 

Have you read Campbells works? I have.

 

Lopez is not a friend or my buddy.

 

You chose the term bullshit, not I.

 

Are you from Tibet or an eastern country? I can have my friend (who is a Tibetan refugee) write a more scathing expose on Tibet. If you like, I could arrange that.

 

I could easily switch to the Catholic view of suppression, if you are more comfortable with that.

 

 

 

ralis

[Stigweard]

Progress toward the ideal will not occur whilst the finger-pointing of 'you are wrong' endures. If someone is told they are wrong then they will only further entrench themselves in the feeling they are right.

 

These rifts will not heal whilst we stand on one side of the chasm and criticize the actions of those on 'the other side'. The truth is we are all one humanity and each and every one of us is responsible in some way for the current state of affairs.

 

hmmmm....

 

[goldisheavy]

I agree with ralis 100%.

 

Stigweard is using one cop out after another and dodging the issues. Yea, we are all humans, group hugs, group hugs... Smile! Think positive. Ok, time for more group hugs! Love, love, love... Don't be a hater, group hugs. Smile!

 

Alas, peace will never come from this head in the sand attitude. Fact is we do make judgments and to pretend otherwise is dangerous and unproductive. We consider murder to be wrong. Killing someone for breaking "a religious law" that we consider to be ridiculous in our culture is murder to us. There is no need to whitewash it with "we are all humans". Yes we are, so what?

 

As long as people follow doctrines thinking the truth is in the doctrine, rather than in the heart, the following will happen. If the truth is in the doctrine, then it's logical to follow the doctrine more closely. It's then logical that the closer you follow the doctrine the closer you are to truth. Then it's completely logical to become obsessed with following the doctrine in every minute detail and to get very very serious about it. Once the person takes this attitude, they become a fanatic who interprets everything literally, and the thing is...that person is being LOGICAL and REASONABLE...if the assumption that the truth is in the doctrine is correct.

 

Except the truth is never in the doctrine. The doctrines are a mix of utter bullshit with some helpful pointers. This is necessarily so, but to explain why is beyond this post. Investigate the Buddhist concept of "emptiness" to see why. In other words, from the point of view of looking for something that's completely true without any possibility of deceit, the doctrines are...wait for it...wait for it... WRONG. Yes, they are wrong. Not the person is wrong, not the hands, not the feet, not the liver, not the heart is wrong, but the doctrine really IS wrong. If you lower your expectation toward the doctrine, and if you think "I don't want anything more than a few good hints" then maybe the doctrine is not wrong. But is this how people approach doctrines in practice the world over? No. Not at all. Not yet. Not today.

 

It takes great courage to stop suckling on a doctrine's tit as the source of all truth.

 

Consider this: if nobody is willing to point out flaws, inconsistencies, and unnecessary savagery of many doctrines, why would anyone want to stop following them as closely as possible, and as literally as possible, if the person's current belief is that the doctrine is the absolute and total truth? Why? Of course they wouldn't! Ah, but if you point the finger and say "you are wrong" you are a bad guy, right?

 

Do you really want to work toward a society where it's unacceptable to say that someone or something is wrong? Is that similar to tolerance at all?

 

It's one thing to love all people, but it's another thing to give aid and succor to harmful doctrines.

Edited February 23, 2009 by goldisheavy

[ZenStatic]

You neither understand arguments or know how to respond without emotion. I am stating facts about all religious suppression. This is not about holding grudges. A lot of people hold the view that Tibetan Lamas see westerners as heathens. Just because they come to the west and set up shop, does not automatically grant them respect. Respect is not automatically given if one is wearing robes and sits on a throne. Has this Dharmic religious view made an effect on peoples lives in the west? Only time will tell.

 

Have you read Campbells works? I have.

 

Lopez is not a friend or my buddy.

 

You chose the term bullshit, not I.

 

Are you from Tibet or an eastern country? I can have my friend (who is a Tibetan refugee) write a more scathing expose on Tibet. If you like, I could arrange that.

 

I could easily switch to the Catholic view of suppression, if you are more comfortable with that.

ralis

 

I don't understand where your accusation of emotional involvement comes from. The fact that I will speak out against ignorance and lies doesn't make me emotionally invested at all.

 

If you do not think that those known to have great knowledge and share it, should be granted respect as a teacher, then I pity those that you ever decide to learn something from. And they aren't thrones. Stop the blatant lies for once.

 

Yes, I read Campbell many years ago. He is much more learned in the Greek and Roman mythologies than anything else.

 

I used the term bullshit, because I just stripped off the veneer you tried to put on your insult.

 

Feel free to have your friend join and speak to us. I'm betting there are many who would love to hear his experiences.

 

I don't care which view you might want to switch too. If you lie about it, I'll confront you on that one as well.

 

I agree with ralis 100%.

 

Stigweard is using one cop out after another and dodging the issues. Yea, we are all humans, group hugs, group hugs... Smile! Think positive. Ok, time for more group hugs! Love, love, love... Don't be a hater, group hugs. Smile!

 

Alas, peace will never come from this head in the sand attitude. Fact is we do make judgments and to pretend otherwise is dangerous and unproductive. We consider murder to be wrong. Killing someone for breaking "a religious law" that we consider to be ridiculous in our culture is murder to us. There is no need to whitewash it with "we are all humans". Yes we are, so what?

 

As long as people follow doctrines thinking the truth is in the doctrine, rather than in the heart, the following will happen. If the truth is in the doctrine, then it's logical to follow the doctrine more closely. It's then logical that the closer you follow the doctrine the closer you are to truth. Then it's completely logical to become obsessed with following the doctrine in every minute detail and to get very very serious about it. Once the person takes this attitude, they become a fanatic who interprets everything literally, and the thing is...that person is being LOGICAL and REASONABLE...if the assumption that the truth is in the doctrine is correct.

 

Except the truth is never in the doctrine. The doctrines are a mix of utter bullshit with some helpful pointers. This is necessarily so, but to explain why is beyond this post. Investigate the Buddhist concept of "emptiness" to see why. In other words, from the point of view of looking for something that's completely true without any possibility of deceit, the doctrines are...wait for it...wait for it... WRONG. Yes, they are wrong. Not the person is wrong, not the hands, not the feet, not the liver, not the heart is wrong, but the doctrine really IS wrong. If you lower your expectation toward the doctrine, and if you think "I don't want anything more than a few good hints" then maybe the doctrine is not wrong. But is this how people approach doctrines in practice the world over? No. Not at all. Not yet. Not today.

 

It takes great courage to stop suckling on a doctrine's tit as the source of all truth.

 

Consider this: if nobody is willing to point out flaws, inconsistencies, and unnecessary savagery of many doctrines, why would anyone want to stop following them as closely as possible, and as literally as possible, if the person's current belief is that the doctrine is the absolute and total truth? Why? Of course they wouldn't! Ah, but if you point the finger and say "you are wrong" you are a bad guy, right?

 

Do you really want to work toward a society where it's unacceptable to say that someone or something is wrong? Is that similar to tolerance at all?

 

It's one thing to love all people, but it's another thing to give aid and succor to harmful doctrines.

 

And all of this opinion, from your perspective. Because well, it all gets very confusing. You spit out your personal doctrine here, but if we apply your doctrine to what you teach us, then we just end up in an infinite paradoxical loop.

 

You speak as though logic is the be all end all.Do you believe logic trumps all?

[goldisheavy]

And all of this opinion, from your perspective.

 

Of course. Have you seen anything written that was not an opinion? Ever?

 

I will even go further. I will say that what people call "direct experience" is also an opinion.

 

And the opinion that everything is an opinion, is also an opinion.

 

What's important is not whose opinion it is, but whether or not you like the opinion. To determine whether or not you like it, you must assess its consequences.

 

Because well, it all gets very confusing. You spit out your personal doctrine here, but if we apply your doctrine to what you teach us, then we just end up in an infinite paradoxical loop.

 

If you want to receive a simple step-by-step guideline you can follow, of course what I say will sounds confusing, because I am saying that the step-by-step guides are an entry into hell over the long term, because step-by-step guidelines cultivate bad mind habits of mindless following.

 

Now, if you truly understand the nature of my critique, it would be the height of ignorance to imply that the problem with what I am saying is that my "doctrine" is self-purifying. It's not a problem, but a feature of it. My doctrine purifies other doctrines and then purifies itself as well. Nothing is left in the end but the infinite possibility, but this means you have to become responsible. You have to become a leader of your own life, and not a follower. The lord of your senses and not a victim.

 

You speak as though logic is the be all end all.Do you believe logic trumps all?

 

Reason is awesome, isn't it? Reason trumps all indeed. Why? Because those that rely on reason are swayed by reason, and those that do not rely on reason are swayed by various phenomena in an arbitrary fashion. Should there be a lack of arbitrariness, that is the presence of reason. Furthermore, anything that has to do with identities and relations is governed by reason. If you can name it, and if you can point at it, it is governed by reason.

Edited February 23, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Stigweard]

Stigweard is using one cop out after another and dodging the issues. Yea, we are all humans, group hugs, group hugs... Smile! Think positive. Ok, time for more group hugs! Love, love, love... Don't be a hater, group hugs. Smile!

 

Alas, peace will never come from this head in the sand attitude. Fact is we do make judgments and to pretend otherwise is dangerous and unproductive. We consider murder to be wrong. Killing someone for breaking "a religious law" that we consider to be ridiculous in our culture is murder to us. There is no need to whitewash it with "we are all humans". Yes we are, so what?

 

 

You want a realistic attitude?

 

Imagine this ... 600+ delegates and leaders from every major religion in the world gathered in one room with the intent on exploring the very topic of this thread. They have had to overcome deeply entrenched suspicion and lingering prejudices to even get there in the first place.

 

Now picture some chap who gets up on stage before them and launches into a narration of how wrong they all are to have belief in their faiths and doctrines; about how wrong their religions have been.

 

Exactly how far do you think his narration would go before he was shouted from the stage ... or worse?

 

You want a realistic attitude?

 

When you are standing on the front line of creating fundamental social change, when you are standing shoulder to shoulder with parties that have rankled with mutual animosity for centuries then the absolute worst thing you can possibly do is to openly challenge them by even insinuating that they are "wrong". Even if they are absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt wrong, if your intent is to further the cause of harmony, then you cannot ... cannot ... create the polarity of making any declarations of who is right and wrong.

 

Now imagine those very same parties sitting around the same table opening engaging in dialogue, examining the core issues that have caused ill will between them and exploring concrete strategies to co-create an ever progressive interfaith harmony. And then, after 4 days of intensive dialogue, them all making a solemn commitment to the implementation of those strategies.

 

And why have they been able to do this?

 

Because we were able to engage each other with mutual respect, because we adopted the attitude of 'we are all in this together', because we were able to say to one another, "Your faith, your doctrine, your belief is worthy of respect and appreciation."

 

With this regard we were able to draw together 600+ religious representatives from half a dozen nations in concrete bid for greater peace and harmony. And those 600+ delegates will return to their congregations and communities and be ambassadors for the strategies we agreed upon.

 

So in terms of real and provable results in the world I am sufficiently content with my attitude. How about you?

 

[ralis]

I don't understand where your accusation of emotional involvement comes from. The fact that I will speak out against ignorance and lies doesn't make me emotionally invested at all.

 

If you do not think that those known to have great knowledge and share it, should be granted respect as a teacher, then I pity those that you ever decide to learn something from. And they aren't thrones. Stop the blatant lies for once.

 

Yes, I read Campbell many years ago. He is much more learned in the Greek and Roman mythologies than anything else.

 

I used the term bullshit, because I just stripped off the veneer you tried to put on your insult.

 

Feel free to have your friend join and speak to us. I'm betting there are many who would love to hear his experiences.

 

I don't care which view you might want to switch too. If you lie about it, I'll confront you on that one as well.

And all of this opinion, from your perspective. Because well, it all gets very confusing. You spit out your personal doctrine here, but if we apply your doctrine to what you teach us, then we just end up in an infinite paradoxical loop.

 

You speak as though logic is the be all end all.Do you believe logic trumps all?

 

 

We happen to have a traditional Tibetan Stupa here in Santa Fe. The Lama sits high up on a throne and the students sit on the floor beneath him. The students sit after the Lama enters and after he sits they all do three prostrations before him. If that not giving allegiance to royalty? Have you been to such a teaching?

 

I suggest you read in "The Masks Of God" the origin of the priesthood and how that system became the intercessor between the tribal shaman and the members of the tribe. This is also the beginnings of monotheism and religious orders on this planet.

 

My pointing out of facts are easily verified if you take the time to look.

 

It is strange how you see my pointing out as an insult, rather than as a way to liberate people from religious oppression.

 

ralis

[ZenStatic]

If you want to receive a simple step-by-step guideline you can follow, of course what I say will sounds confusing, because I am saying that the step-by-step guides are an entry into hell over the long term, because step-by-step guidelines cultivate bad mind habits of mindless following.

 

Now, if you truly understand the nature of my critique, it would be the height of ignorance to imply that the problem with what I am saying is that my "doctrine" is self-purifying. It's not a problem, but a feature of it. My doctrine purifies other doctrines and then purifies itself as well. Nothing is left in the end but the infinite possibility, but this means you have to become responsible. You have to become a leader of your own life, and not a follower. The lord of your senses and not a victim.

Reason is awesome, isn't it? Reason trumps all indeed. Why? Because those that rely on reason are swayed by reason, and those that do not rely on reason are swayed by various phenomena in an arbitrary fashion. Should there be a lack of arbitrariness, that is the presence of reason. Furthermore, anything that has to do with identities and relations is governed by reason. If you can name it, and if you can point at it, it is governed by reason.

 

You said truth is never in doctrine. Yet, you spout off your own doctrine. See the paradox now?

 

And no, reason does not trump all. There has been, and always will be, things that happene that fall outside the realm of reason. We have no explanations, they don't fit into logic. But that makes them no less real.

 

Oh, and if you truly want to be a leader as you state, don't learn anything from anyone else. Because well, then you are just following.

 

We happen to have a traditional Tibetan Stupa here in Santa Fe. The Lama sits high up on a throne and the students sit on the floor beneath him. The students sit after the Lama enters and after he sits they all do three prostrations before him. If that not giving allegiance to royalty? Have you been to such a teaching?

 

I suggest you read in "The Masks Of God" the origin of the priesthood and how that system became the intercessor between the tribal shaman and the members of the tribe. This is also the beginnings of monotheism and religious orders on this planet.

 

My pointing out of facts are easily verified if you take the time to look.

 

It is strange how you see my pointing out as an insult, rather than as a way to liberate people from religious oppression.

 

ralis

 

No, its not giving allegiance to royalty. As was previosuly pointed out, you bring your western viewpoint to things, and apply that. Prostrations have many different uses in Buddhism. Sometimes it is the 3 to show veneration to the Triple Gem. Most often in Vajrayana, Tibetan, it is done to purify; body, speech, then mind; before practice or teachings are done.

 

You are taking apples, oranges, tomatoes and grapes; throwing them all in 1 bowl, and saying how they are all the same because they are fruits. It just isn't like that. No matter how much you try, it never will be. You're using as reference a series of books published back in the 60's, which greatly operate on the ridiculous notion that all religions stemmed from the ancient egyptians. If Campbell could write those books with the knowledge out there now, I think he would have different things to say.

 

You constantly stating that all religion is oppression is what is insulting. Especially when many of your points are made with an ignorance of facts.

[ralis]

You said truth is never in doctrine. Yet, you spout off your own doctrine. See the paradox now?

 

And no, reason does not trump all. There has been, and always will be, things that happene that fall outside the realm of reason. We have no explanations, they don't fit into logic. But that makes them no less real.

 

Oh, and if you truly want to be a leader as you state, don't learn anything from anyone else. Because well, then you are just following.

No, its not giving allegiance to royalty. As was previosuly pointed out, you bring your western viewpoint to things, and apply that. Prostrations have many different uses in Buddhism. Sometimes it is the 3 to show veneration to the Triple Gem. Most often in Vajrayana, Tibetan, it is done to purify; body, speech, then mind; before practice or teachings are done.

 

You are taking apples, oranges, tomatoes and grapes; throwing them all in 1 bowl, and saying how they are all the same because they are fruits. It just isn't like that. No matter how much you try, it never will be. You're using as reference a series of books published back in the 60's, which greatly operate on the ridiculous notion that all religions stemmed from the ancient egyptians. If Campbell could write those books with the knowledge out there now, I think he would have different things to say.

 

You constantly stating that all religion is oppression is what is insulting. Especially when many of your points are made with an ignorance of facts.

 

Actually you are the one in error. Campbell makes clear that the origin of monotheism stems from Mesopotamia, not Egypt. It was the domination of one tribal God over all others i.e, Yahweh became the dominate deity. As a result, the Hebrew people killed off whomever did not venerate their version of God i.e, tribal God. Thus became the edict under pain of death: "Thou shalt not have no other Gods before me". History is not in dispute over this matter.

 

So far I have referred to excellent scholarship and I can provide more. However, you have provided no references to back your arguments. Eliade's work is excellent. Especially his work on Shamanism.

 

Scholarship is more valuable and respected with scholars coming in from another countries institutions. This can provide a more objective view instead of the usual emotional revisionist view of someone deeply invested in a particular system. For instance, the revisionist view of Padmasambhava. There is much debate as to whether he is a mythological figure or historical reality.

 

When it comes to matters of religion and spirituality, one who questions and uses any critical thinking is afforded no respect. There is an anti-intellectual movement in new age and spiritual circles that abhors critical thinking and scholarship. I have been told that I am "just in my head".

 

I think by this discussion, it is obvious that inter group harmony is difficult or impossible at best. I have demonstrated that when asking questions and stating facts that are of value, the party with whom I am speaking will not engage in a forthright manner. I am accused of lies and deception. Lostmonk will not for one moment question his beliefs. That is his prerogative. I have not proceeded with this discussion out of some malice towards anyone. My concern is the suppression of people that continues to be put forth in the name of some institution, religion or whatever the higher cause. One is asked to purify and sacrifice for that cause. Why? History records many instances of atrocities in the name of a higher cause, be it racial genocide, burning at the stake for purification of the soul. Even bowing before a so called enlightened being is a form of suppression. That very act leaves one with the impression of being lesser than.

 

 

 

Lostmonk: You proceed from incorrect conclusions about what I write. Doctrines? I have stated none. My whole approach is to make a series of statements as to how one becomes a slave to suppression by authoritarianism. That is all.

 

Lets just look at this idea of prostrating before the Lama. Is it a choice one can make or is it an absolute requirement? Is there a stigma attached to one if one chooses not to participate? What if one were to go outside and do the prostrations instead of before the Lama?

 

I already know the answer, because it is all tied up in one's vows. If one breaks one's vows, then there is karmic retribution. Hell realms etc. Who created these vows? Sounds like the Dark Ages to me.

 

I have read the texts around all of this. "The Torch of Certainty" and there is another one that I can't recall the title at the moment. In sum, these books describe the hell realms that one enters if one breaks one's vows. Having sex within so many feet of a Lama will propel one into some weird state of hell. Now be honest with me Lostmonk. Is this not suppression based on fear and manipulation? No matter what culture or who this is perpetrated against? Is this not power used against naive individuals, who have never had a chance to think for themselves rather than being slaves to fear and superstition? You claim these are the "eastern ways" and some naive westerner could never comprehend their ways.

 

Sorry to disappoint, but east and west are merely points of reference and are not excuses for the behavior that we have been discussing.

 

Prove to me that religion is not oppressive. Read the excellent work by Wilhelm Reich "Mass Psychology of Fascism".

 

 

I have approached my life from a spirit of exploration and curiosity. I have questioned every one of my beliefs and can trace back all of my beliefs to guilt, fear, trauma, family conditioning and my naive acceptance of so called religious values. The religious values were supposedly for my own good. The systems were not only Judeo Christian values in the west, but a thorough indoctrination of eastern values in many different belief systems. This required a great deal of self honesty on my part. This kind of self honesty does not come without a price.

 

You accuse me of being only rational and logical to a fault. I have had experiences, that can neither be quantified or semantically described.

 

ralis

Edited February 23, 2009 by ralis

[ralis]

I agree with ralis 100%.

 

Stigweard is using one cop out after another and dodging the issues. Yea, we are all humans, group hugs, group hugs... Smile! Think positive. Ok, time for more group hugs! Love, love, love... Don't be a hater, group hugs. Smile!

 

Alas, peace will never come from this head in the sand attitude. Fact is we do make judgments and to pretend otherwise is dangerous and unproductive. We consider murder to be wrong. Killing someone for breaking "a religious law" that we consider to be ridiculous in our culture is murder to us. There is no need to whitewash it with "we are all humans". Yes we are, so what?

 

As long as people follow doctrines thinking the truth is in the doctrine, rather than in the heart, the following will happen. If the truth is in the doctrine, then it's logical to follow the doctrine more closely. It's then logical that the closer you follow the doctrine the closer you are to truth. Then it's completely logical to become obsessed with following the doctrine in every minute detail and to get very very serious about it. Once the person takes this attitude, they become a fanatic who interprets everything literally, and the thing is...that person is being LOGICAL and REASONABLE...if the assumption that the truth is in the doctrine is correct.

 

Except the truth is never in the doctrine. The doctrines are a mix of utter bullshit with some helpful pointers. This is necessarily so, but to explain why is beyond this post. Investigate the Buddhist concept of "emptiness" to see why. In other words, from the point of view of looking for something that's completely true without any possibility of deceit, the doctrines are...wait for it...wait for it... WRONG. Yes, they are wrong. Not the person is wrong, not the hands, not the feet, not the liver, not the heart is wrong, but the doctrine really IS wrong. If you lower your expectation toward the doctrine, and if you think "I don't want anything more than a few good hints" then maybe the doctrine is not wrong. But is this how people approach doctrines in practice the world over? No. Not at all. Not yet. Not today.

 

It takes great courage to stop suckling on a doctrine's tit as the source of all truth.

 

Consider this: if nobody is willing to point out flaws, inconsistencies, and unnecessary savagery of many doctrines, why would anyone want to stop following them as closely as possible, and as literally as possible, if the person's current belief is that the doctrine is the absolute and total truth? Why? Of course they wouldn't! Ah, but if you point the finger and say "you are wrong" you are a bad guy, right?

 

Do you really want to work toward a society where it's unacceptable to say that someone or something is wrong? Is that similar to tolerance at all?

 

It's one thing to love all people, but it's another thing to give aid and succor to harmful doctrines.

 

 

Thank you for you well thought out post. I knew before I leaped in here that I would be hammered by people adhering to their own belief systems as opposed to intelligent discussion. I appreciated your thoughts on the Buddhist doctrine of "emptiness" and how that applies to all doctrinal hooks. The Lamas never explain what is meant by emptiness and all the translators never give any useful discourse. Are they referring to space being empty, language being inadequate to describe and quantify reality or just nihilism. Whatever it means, it is a doctrine that keeps people hooked in. Especially people in the west.

 

Thanks again

 

ralis

[goldisheavy]

Because we were able to engage each other with mutual respect, because we adopted the attitude of 'we are all in this together', because we were able to say to one another, "Your faith, your doctrine, your belief is worthy of respect and appreciation."

 

I believe that people deserve some basic level of respect just for being a person. However, a doctrine does not deserve an automatic respect in a sense of offering it your protection, like you would to a person for just being a person. You can say that a doctrine deserves some minimal respect in a sense that before you disagree with one, you should read it. So then, if it promotes mutilation and various other sundry atrocities, you don't have to respect it. You also don't have to respect it if it pretends to be a doctrine about the entry into the life of spirit, and yet gives no practical insight into how this might be accomplished, but instead saddles you with a lot of rote and "just because I said so" non-explanations.

 

So in terms of real and provable results in the world I am sufficiently content with my attitude. How about you?

 

 

I am also content. The fact is that you need people like me. I am the background against which you can make your work succeed. The criticism I offer is, I believe, eminently reasonable. I was even criticized by lostmonk for being too reasonable, which is a first one for me. Now, you need people of reason to say things that people are not yet emotionally ready to accept, so that these people will feel deep in their guts that something, maybe a very tiny something about what they are doing is, wait for it...wait for it...WRONG. Think about it. If the person thinks that 100% of what they are doing is right, would the person need to attend a interfaith meeting and consult with others, possibly leading one to change one's mind? Even if the person cannot consciously admit to being even slightly wrong, subconsciously they must allow for this possibility in order to attend a meeting like the one you are talking about. And I play a role in this.

 

Further. When you get so many people in the room, generally their ability to admit mistakes vanishes to near zero. Unless among them there is an amazingly exceptional person, no one in their "right" mind is going to stand in front of hundreds of heathens and admit to any wrongdoing.

 

But meet the person one on one, and this can change. One on one, using reason to highlight the problems with finding truth to be in the doctrine as opposed to in one's heart or in one's life, is a productive approach. Then, in the privacy of one on one discussion, many more people would be more open, especially if they can trust that you won't go around later on blabbing about their "weak faith".

 

So among friends and close associates, my approach works best. At some point you really do want people to pay attention to reason, because whether they know this or not, they rely on reason. And if you rely on something, you better know how it works. If you rely on bones and muscles, you better know some basic anatomy. And intuitively we know it, but sometimes we don't know enough. That's why runners who heel stomp often develop ankle, knee and hip problems, because as intuitive as running is, there are wrong ways to do it that lead to injuries.

 

I would say that in your particular position, you did the right thing. You want to continue these people to dialogue with each other and to overcome their distaste for each other at least to some extent. On the other hand, you need someone like me to make arguments for why what you do is meaningful. Face it, logically, if some doctrine is 100% correct and is the truth, it makes sense to be a zealot (I explained why in a previous post), and it doesn't make sense to go somewhere to talk with heathens about how to get along. That possibility is just not open.

 

And finally there is a huge difference between pointing your finger and shouting in an accusatory tone, "You are wrong!" and leaving it at that, and calmly, in a kind tone of voice, explaining the reasons behind the wrongness. Patiently giving the reasons for the person's wrongness shows respect for that person. If you don't respect the person, instead of patiently and kindly explaining the many reasons why they are wrong, you just cut off their head and be done with it.

Edited February 23, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Wayfarer64]

This is remarkable in its illustration of what it takes to foment harmony- or not... as the case may be... I again say that it is our preconceptions ( and lack of LISTENING) that gets in the way of true communication.... Our carried baggage is just too cumbersome to permit us to join hands as Stig asks...

 

 

But I could also ask is it needed? The tower of Babble that is our human history of philosophy and faith, even our supposedly united, or at least potentially unifying "spirituality", - is the way we just sort of get along, its not comfy-cozy but it is invigorating...

[gendao]

Why can't we all see the same thingg????!!!! Waahhhh!!!!

Edited February 23, 2009 by vortex