What practical things can we do to facilitate interfaith harmony?

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

In my experience there is some of what you say. Once I came to a very well respected and somewhat "famous" Dzogchen Guru, but the guy didn't even bother to say hi to me. If I got a guest in my house, certainly I would at least say "hi". Then when the session started, the guy didn't bother to talk about anything, like explain what is emptiness, what is rigpa, and so forth. Instead, everyone just sat down and proceeded to chant something that in my opinion they don't even understand. The only good things I have to say about that kind of rote practice are the smell of incense and the musical voices that some of those folks had. But the ignorance there was waist deep, and in large part it was so because there was nothing done to question and to explore anything. In Guru's defense, he was sick. However some of his close students were there, and there is no reason why they couldn't chime in to save their Guru the trouble when the Guru was sick. Either way I ascribe this failure to the Guru.

 

When I shared this negative experience with buddhists, needless to say I have received zero support and understanding. Instead everyone gave me every excuse possible how the problem must have been with me. There is simply no possibility in these people's minds that something can be wrong with someone they admire. That's just not a possibility they are open to.

 

I use the word "Guru" conventionally and not as a reflection of how I feel in my heart. I went there being open to a deep relationship, but came away unsatisfied.

 

However! That's not how it always is! I've also heard plenty of people explain very, very, very well what "emptiness" means in Buddhism. In particular, if you go to e-sangha forum, you'll be certain to get good explanations from many people there. That's not to say I recommend e-sangha forum, but for the purpose of clarifying one's understanding of emptiness it can serve as a good tool in my opinion.

 

A great many texts are available that explain the concept of Buddhist "emptiness" very well. Luckily many even previously secret texts have been published. Perhaps grudgingly so, but published nonetheless. So the explanations are available, even if many Lamas/Gurus are lazy and/or stupid.

 

I've heard from a friend who speaks Chinese and spends a lot of time with various Chinese wu-shu teachers that there is a general perception that the Westerners are idiots who are hopeless. It's a stereotype, and perhaps it's false, but I do think it's out there, circulating among at least some people, and it probably explains why many of these folks don't want to bother explaining anything to the stupid Westerners who can't get it anyway. But again, I am also equally certain that there are many great teachers who don't suffer from this attitude in the slightest.

Edited February 23, 2009 by goldisheavy

[gendao]

The only good things I have to say about that kind of rote practice

 

I've heard from a friend who speaks Chinese and spends a lot of time with various Chinese wu-shu teachers that there is a general perception that the Westerners are idiots who are hopeless. It's a stereotype, and perhaps it's false, but I do think it's out there, circulating among at least some people, and it probably explains why many of these folks don't want to bother explaining anything to the stupid Westerners who can't get it anyway. But again, I am also equally certain that there are many great teachers who don't suffer from this attitude in the slightest.

Actually, that's the "traditional" Chinese way of mass instruction.

Spend more time on rote practice and less time lecturing theory...

I don't know if this system is designed more to benefit the teacher or his students (guessing teacher)?

Perhaps it's the only way you can really teach a large group of people.

But you see this in Chinese martial arts and schooling, as well.

So really, he's treating you, as a Westerner, no differently, lol.

 

 

Although, I don't think that works well for me either, as I would like more personalized instruction and an explanation of what I'm really doing.

 

 

Of course, if you go to a Western church, you don't get much explanation, either. You sit quietly and listen to the same rhetoric for the umpteenth time, sing along with some hymns and drop some change when the plate gets passed your way. There is no ideological Q&A there, either.

Edited February 23, 2009 by vortex

[goldisheavy]

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

 

Yes, I do see it. I'm glad you notice it. I don't make anyone pray 5 times in my direction because I have such an immaculate doctrine. I don't propose you latch onto my doctrine. In fact, I structure my doctrine in such a way as to show the problem with other doctrines while not allowing the person to take my doctrine seriously either. In other words, it's like using a thorn to extract another thorn, and when you're done, you throw it away, so that you are free of both thorns.

 

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.

 

For example?

 

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.

 

Learning from something and following something are two distinct and different kinds of relationships. In particular, conventionally speaking, if you want to follow something, doubt, critical thinking, and analysis just get in the way. But if you want to learn from something, then doubt, critical thinking and analysis are essential.

 

Ultimately you cannot even follow something you don't understand, so you still need to understand first, even if you want to follow.

 

Socially, leading/following sets up group dynamics that cause suffering, because the mistakes of the leader are echoed by the followers. Having followers is like buying stock on a margin. If you are right, you win a lot of money. If you are wrong, you lose everything and are in huge debt. I find this to be hugely problematic, because such a setup is custom made for catastrophic failure, considering the fallibility of human beings.

 

Actually, that's the "traditional" Chinese way of mass instruction.

Spend more time on rote practice and less time lecturing theory...

I don't know if this system is designed more to benefit the teacher or his students (guessing teacher)?

Perhaps it's the only way you can really teach a large group of people.

 

I am not sure if you're familiar with it or not, but there is something called "a closed door student". My friend was a "closed door student" of many teachers and he sincerely told me that basically what these teachers teach to the masses is bullshit that ranges between useless and outright lies that are designed to cater to stereotypes (like, they feed to the students whatever the students expect, regardless that it's a lie). This is done to collect money from a wide base of "students". Then when the class is over and the 30 morons leave the room, your real student shows up at your home or somewhere in the park or outside the city limits, and you do your real teaching there. That's the "closed door student". Needless to say I find this practice to be very objectionable and I believe that people who engage in it go to hell (both teachers and students).

 

But you see this in Chinese martial arts and schooling, as well.

So really, he's treating you, as a Westerner, no differently, lol.

 

I believe you might right about this.

 

Of course, if you go to a Western church, you don't get much explanation, either. You sit quietly and listen to the same rhetoric for the umpteenth time, sing along with some hymns and drop some change when the plate gets passed your way. There is no ideological Q&A there, either.

 

Indeed. There is much to be criticized in Christianity. However, at least Jesus was not a warlord. So I count my blessings too. It could be worse.

Edited February 23, 2009 by goldisheavy

[ZenStatic]

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

 

Ah, the wonders of it all. Scholars from another institution can provide a more objective view. That's beyond amusing; because you ignore the most basic premise to someone being a reliable source. they must know the culture about which they are even writing, otherwise it is uneducated drivel. Theory is not helpful in the realm of comparative religion.

 

You are nto asking questions or stating facts. You are trying to further your own viewpoint at the expense of the truth. You have flat out lied a few times, and misrepresented what things are even more. And there is no reason for me to question my beliefs. I do not practice Tibetan Buddhism in any way shape or form. It is not my beliefs that you attack with lies and misinformation. But, I would be remiss in my duty as a human being to stand by and let you trash that which you obviously don't know, and let your lies run rampant.

 

You see things as supression and such because you have no belief in the power of anything being discussed. So at the point it is recognized that you have no belief in karma, the hells, etc, why is your opinion relevant? You're not trying to educate anyone on the belief, you're only bashing that which you don't agree with. If you don't agree with something, then state that. But don't think you have the right to lie and misinform others about it.

 

If you can't fathom the differences between eastern and western cultures, you're in severe need of some kind of therapy.

 

All social atmospheres are oppressive to a point. Not just religions, but workplaces, schools, anything. Is religion formed purely for the reason of keeping people from attaining their potential? Thats crap. Of course you can trace your beliefs back to those feelings; because the negative feelings we have are what religion most tries to help people with.

[Wayfarer64]

Yes, I do see it. I'm glad you notice it. I don't make anyone pray 5 times in my direction because I have such an immaculate doctrine. I don't propose you latch onto my doctrine. In fact, I structure my doctrine in such a way as to show the problem with other doctrines while not allowing the person to take my doctrine seriously either. In other words, it's like using a thorn to extract another thorn, and when you're done, you throw it away, so that you are free of both thorns.

For example?

Learning from something and following something are two distinct and different kinds of relationships. In particular, conventionally speaking, if you want to follow something, doubt, critical thinking, and analysis just get in the way. But if you want to learn from something, then doubt, critical thinking and analysis are essential.

 

Ultimately you cannot even follow something you don't understand, so you still need to understand first, even if you want to follow.

 

Socially, leading/following sets up group dynamics that cause suffering, because the mistakes of the leader are echoed by the followers. Having followers is like buying stock on a margin. If you are right, you win a lot of money. If you are wrong, you lose everything and are in huge debt. I find this to be hugely problematic, because such a setup is custom made for catastrophic failure, considering the fallibility of human beings.

I am not sure if you're familiar with it or not, but there is something called "a closed door student". My friend was a "closed door student" of many teachers and he sincerely told me that basically what these teachers teach to the masses is bullshit that ranges between useless and outright lies that are designed to cater to stereotypes (like, they feed to the students whatever the students expect, regardless that it's a lie). This is done to collect money from a wide base of "students". Then when the class is over and the 30 morons leave the room, your real student shows up at your home or somewhere in the park or outside the city limits, and you do your real teaching there. That's the "closed door student". Needless to say I find this practice to be very objectionable and I believe that people who engage in it go to hell (both teachers and students).

I believe you might right about this.

Indeed. There is much to be criticized in Christianity. However, at least Jesus was not a warlord. So I count my blessings too. It could be worse.

 

 

Unhappily some Christians used his name to invade Palistine a few times and called those military actions Crusades -as if they had a divine purpose -beyond the search for glory and pelf...We humans can be such bastids and name the cause of our attrocities the will of Allah or Jesus or anyoldthing...

 

To defend humanity against the facts of our own history is no easy task ! -impossible perhaps - but there are better days ahead it would seem - our history does show some progress- yes?

[CarsonZi]

All beliefs will ultimately be transcended by personal experience. Talk of "I believe this" or "I believe that" is all just that....talk. These "beliefs" eveyone is spouting off about here, are just ideas you have yet to have personal experience with. I suggest spending more time in silent awareness and less time talking about theory.

 

Love,

Carson

[ralis]

Ah, the wonders of it all. Scholars from another institution can provide a more objective view. That's beyond amusing; because you ignore the most basic premise to someone being a reliable source. they must know the culture about which they are even writing, otherwise it is uneducated drivel. Theory is not helpful in the realm of comparative religion.

 

You are nto asking questions or stating facts. You are trying to further your own viewpoint at the expense of the truth. You have flat out lied a few times, and misrepresented what things are even more. And there is no reason for me to question my beliefs. I do not practice Tibetan Buddhism in any way shape or form. It is not my beliefs that you attack with lies and misinformation. But, I would be remiss in my duty as a human being to stand by and let you trash that which you obviously don't know, and let your lies run rampant.

 

You see things as supression and such because you have no belief in the power of anything being discussed. So at the point it is recognized that you have no belief in karma, the hells, etc, why is your opinion relevant? You're not trying to educate anyone on the belief, you're only bashing that which you don't agree with. If you don't agree with something, then state that. But don't think you have the right to lie and misinform others about it.

 

If you can't fathom the differences between eastern and western cultures, you're in severe need of some kind of therapy.

 

All social atmospheres are oppressive to a point. Not just religions, but workplaces, schools, anything. Is religion formed purely for the reason of keeping people from attaining their potential? Thats crap. Of course you can trace your beliefs back to those feelings; because the negative feelings we have are what religion most tries to help people with.

 

 

I am in need of therapy? Which one? Electroshock, soul purification or some psycho pharmaceutical modality? LOL!! That is a personal attack on me! What are your criteria for such a diagnosis? Are you a licensed therapist? I never said there were no differences between east and west. Just using those references as excuses for abuse and pushing doctrine is what I have been talking about.

 

I asked you to refrain from personal attacks. You have shown your true colors by relying on emotion and presenting no substance on which to base your arguments. Even while vehemently denying the use of emotional attacks. In general, this is what religions do best.

 

The real truth about the universe can't be quantified or reduced to some doctrine. Humans are expert at creating anthropocentric views about themselves and the universe. What a grave error in thinking. That is my underlying premise.

 

ralis

[Wayfarer64]

All beliefs will ultimately be transcended by personal experience. Talk of "I believe this" or "I believe that" is all just that....talk. These "beliefs" eveyone is spouting off about here, are just ideas you have yet to have personal experience with. I suggest spending more time in silent awareness and less time talking about theory.

 

Love,

Carson

 

 

oh oh Carson- Duck! Slings and arrows are rife amongst us...that is an old problem here!

 

Stick around, I believe that there are more than a few serious practitioners here, with long hours of meditation and some small glimpses into awareness that may be shared... have patience, don't let the blah blah blah get ya down...

[CarsonZi]

Hahaha, thanks Wayfarer for the "heads up"!

oh oh Carson- Duck! Slings and arrows are rife amongst us...that is an old problem here!

 

I guess I am a little bit used to the AYP forum and the moderation that takes place over there and am not used to people being allowed to be so derogatory and harsh on a forum supposedly here to promote conversation around spiritual practices. I hope that everyone here can take a step back when they are angry and just hold their tongues until they can detach a bit from their emotional state. Making anger filled statements won't solve anything. Violence begets violence and harsh words beget harsh words. Love is all there is, the rest is all confusion.

 

Stick around, I believe that there are more than a few serious practitioners here, with long hours of meditation and some small glimpses into awareness that may be shared... have patience, don't let the blah blah blah get ya down...

 

I believe that too...I can tell who is here for "trolling/arguments" and who is here to learn. I'm not going anywhere.

 

Love,

Carson

[NeutralWire]

--

Edited February 23, 2009 by NeutralWire

[rex]

I believe that too...I can tell who is here for "trolling/arguments" and who is here to learn. I'm not going anywhere.

The exchanges prompt us into evaluating the benefit or otherwise of passionate concern over iconoclastic cold logic based on contestable facts.

[dwai]

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.

 

One current example is Bhutan. It is a Buddhist nation with a King and all that. You might call them backwards and underdeveloped, but they seem to be happy enough with what/how things are.

 

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.

 

And you aren't juxtaposing your personal beliefs in this analysis/judgment?

 

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.

 

Your attempts at sounding objective aren't really working -- all that you have mentioned seems subjective to me (not even anecdotal). What is the basis of your claims? Share you sources with us so we can evaluate these claims ourselves.

 

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

 

To each his own I guess. How can you consider the tibetan system failed, when it was forcibly ejected and replaced by an insidious and deplorable government (Communists, of all people)!

 

As far as the India imbroglio goes, well those Ram Sena (Ram's Army) are self-appointed morons who are looking to get political visibility out of their activity. Don't think that just because a bunch of goons decide to use the name of a Deity to justify their activities, there is actually even an iota of truth behind it. And the conditions behind and around this situation is more cultural/socio-political than spiritual or religious.

[CarsonZi]

The exchanges prompt us into evaluating the benefit or otherwise of passionate concern over iconoclastic cold logic based on contestable facts.

 

Yes they do....but there is a compassionate way of doing this...a way of exchanging ideas without having to have the ego so involved. Would you rather be right or would you rather be free? I'll admit I am wrong a lot of the time, and don't know everything. It's incredibly freeing to do this because I am able to find real Truth this way. I don't have to continually asert that I am right and you are all wrong and am able learn from everyone. There would be a lot less name-calling and angry postings if everyone took this approach. (not that my way is better than anyone else's, I just think it might be a little more peaceful maybe. Maybe not.)

 

Love,

Carson:D

[Iris]

very enlightening lol

 

I do believe Ralis is correct. I'm very surprised actually that so many here are not in agreement. Too much interfaith here perhaps :-)

 

I'm wondering how exactly is this "harmony" defined? Getting people to stop killing each other because of religious beliefs?

[Stigweard]

I'm wondering how exactly is this "harmony" defined? Getting people to stop killing each other because of religious beliefs?

 

 

How would you like it to be defined?

[ZenStatic]

very enlightening lol

 

I do believe Ralis is correct. I'm very surprised actually that so many here are not in agreement. Too much interfaith here perhaps :-)

 

I'm wondering how exactly is this "harmony" defined? Getting people to stop killing each other because of religious beliefs?

 

From the header when you first come in: "Discussion is encouraged to wander eclectically across a wide range of spiritual thought and practice, whether Buddhist, Yogic, Tantric, Judaic, Advaitic, Christian, Islamic, Shamanic, Occult, "New Age", Integral". I'm rather the opposite. I'm surprised that ralis has so many agreeing with him. Personally, I would prefer the wannabe atheist religion haters to take it somewhere else, but I don't run this place.

[Iris]

From the header when you first come in: "Discussion is encouraged to wander eclectically across a wide range of spiritual thought and practice, whether Buddhist, Yogic, Tantric, Judaic, Advaitic, Christian, Islamic, Shamanic, Occult, "New Age", Integral". I'm rather the opposite. I'm surprised that ralis has so many agreeing with him. Personally, I would prefer the wannabe atheist religion haters to take it somewhere else, but I don't run this place.

 

Interesting logic - not sure I find it sound but as long as you understand it

 

So let me get this right - If I told you that I don't beleive that democracy works and that government is corrupt am I saying that I hate society?

 

It seems everything becomes personalized with some here. So is a discussion only considered a discussion if it wanders down familiar paths? Is there only one way of looking at religion? Through the eyes of the blind perhaps.

Hate is such a powerfully negative word - to so carelessly throw it around. Are you a monk? Sorry to have rattled anyones cage.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Iris

[goldisheavy]

Since this is a discussion about practical things we can do to facilitate harmony, I have a suggestion.

 

I believe that a huge part of the problem lies in the fact that many doctrines (faiths) do not limit themselves with the spiritual teachings, and instead delve into the legal matters, the matters of running the state and so forth. This applies to at least Judaism and Islam, where in Talmud and in Koran a legal system that has to do with governance is outlined. In Judaism the system is never practiced to my knowledge. In Islam it sometimes is, and we even hear for calls for Sharia in places like the UK. On the other hand, I've never heard of the calls to institute a Talmudic court anywhere, but that's beside the point. This is just to set up some background. Please correct me if I am wrong in any of the facts.

 

Since advising people against organizing themselves into leader/followers groups is a slow process that, while useful, does not achieve quick results, a more practical approach might be to advise people to abandon the legalistic aspects of religions.

 

I believe religion has no place in determining the laws of society. Let religion be a path toward enlightenment and let religion stay away from the legalities and the laws of men. How about it?

 

Consider this. Mystics of many big religions are constantly at odds with their respective religions. Why do you think that is? Christian mystics are at odds and are disliked by the Christians. Sufis have been traditionally at odds and disliked by the scholarly/traditional Muslims. Kabbalists have tension with the formal Judaism. Why? Mystics tend to be less dogmatic and more open minded. At the same time, mystics have to at least pretend to get along with their "parent" religion in order to avoid being wiped out, or alternatively they have to go underground. And the mystics have done both of these, depending on how radical of an open-mindedness they advocated.

 

I think we should understand that generally mystics work to transform religion from something rigid, dogmatic and literally interpreted to something more flexible, open-minded and non-literal. However, part of the problem with a lot of mystics, is that even as they do this, they play with fire, because some of the doctrines are violent, especially should the mystic manage to get oneself labeled as a heretic/infidel by his more rabid brothers in the community. And the reason I say it's a problem, is that I think there is a bit of dishonesty among many mystics in that they are reticent to admit that religion is just useless baggage, and that their purely spiritual paths have very little to do with organized religion.

 

Even in Buddhism this has been a problem, for example in Tibet. For example, Milarepa was poisoned by a more traditional/conservative Buddhist. At one time the doctrine beyond cause and effect, Dzogchen, was seen as heretical among the conservative Buddhists in Tibet. So the mystics took some heat all over the map.

 

One thing I notice though, is that the mystics always focus on spiritual development alone and never on the gory details of societal laws and punishments. They tend to be open-minded and willing to try new things. Those are the people that could get along, if they met, even if they were from different "religious" backgrounds. And many of them openly declare that religion outright blocks one's spiritual development. For example, Rav Laitman said that in order to understand Kabbalah you must NOT be religious. (Sorry I don't have the link off the top of my head). He doesn't accept religious people as his students at all.

 

Still even someone like Rav Laitman seems pretty dogmatic. Like one time I was watching a video lecture, and someone asked him about Buddhism. His answer was, paraphrased, "Buddhism gets you ready for Kabbalah, and Kabbalah is the real deal while Buddhism is like the kindergarten". LOL. BUT, I am 100% certain that someone like Rav Laitman would never order or even suggest that the heretics be burned or stoned or killed or anything even slightly similar to this! On the other hand, non-mystical religionists are often caught saying things exactly like that.

 

The reason, I believe, is because religions often depart from the task of spiritual evolution and meddle with mundane issues such as governance.

 

So if the religious people have the good sense to override and cancel the governance related sections of their religions, I think we can move toward peace. For example, let the Judaism abandon Talmud and let the Muslims abandon Sharia, and I think we can get closer to peace. After all, I've never read a single word about Sharia from Rumi, or from any other Sufi. Sufis are mostly concerned with loving God and not with whose hands should be cut off and for what infraction, and who should be stoned. I believe that's a very reasonable and peace-loving approach.

Edited February 24, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

Just a couple of points. Tibet was a feudal society right up tot he Chinese invasion. This was because they isolated themselves from the social evolution which was occurring across the rest of the planet. They resisted change and eventually paid the price. This despite the prediction by Padmasambhava that it would happen. Why? Because there was too much vested interest amongst those that held the power in not allowing change. By keeping the peasants ignorant they were able to perpetuate the old system - and this despite that Buddhism advises 'everything is impermanent' - so it is the result of a certain arrogance. Now both the Dalai Lama and the King of Bhutan have promoted democratic government. I have discussed this with a Tibetan Lama who volunteered this analysis himself.

 

However non of this justifies the harsh and oppressive measures used by the Chinese to try to 'reform' Tibet.

 

I think there is a need to understand that bowing and prostrating do not hold the cultural weight which they might hold for Westerners. Even when I practiced Aikido we started the class by bowing to a picture of the founder. This was explained to me as just showing respect in the way the Japanese do. It had no more significance than that and I quite enjoyed it as a way to start the class and set up the right mental attitude. Similarly when I was a practicing Buddhist we would prostrate to the shrine and I found this set my mind up for whatever teachings happened. It never stopped me thinking about what I was doing, made me feel any less free or stopped me challenging what was going on. In fact I regularly discussed with the Lama how I disliked all the trappings and Tibetan cultural stuff and he basically agreed with me.

 

With regard to the guru relationship - this is a key part of this kind of Buddhist practice and if entered into freely it can be a genuine relationship of respect and love. It is widely abused by charlatans who are out to gain power or other unhealthy influence. And given the general state of unenlightenment around then I would say there are more bad things than good going on.

 

All organized religions have been used for social control and are in this respect an arm of the state. It prefers people who bend the knee to authority and opposes any kind of free thinking. As someone else has said mystics generally in all cultures tend to be persecuted and the 'church' opposes individual realization - unless it has no choice in which case it tries to capitalize it by drawing it into its net. For this reason dogma and doctrine should, IMO be treated with suspicion. However it can be said that the key ideas and insights which religion holds can be said to have been preserved through history by organized religion and it might not be a great idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[NeutralWire]

I've also heard that version of events in Tibet, Apepch7, and it certainly rang true for me.

 

NW

[ralis]

We have broached a complicated and sometimes volatile subject. I just found this piece on tribalism and thought it prudent to share it.

 

ralis

 

 

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices...iii-learning-to

[ZenStatic]

Interesting logic - not sure I find it sound but as long as you understand it

 

So let me get this right - If I told you that I don't beleive that democracy works and that government is corrupt am I saying that I hate society?

 

It seems everything becomes personalized with some here. So is a discussion only considered a discussion if it wanders down familiar paths? Is there only one way of looking at religion? Through the eyes of the blind perhaps.

Hate is such a powerfully negative word - to so carelessly throw it around. Are you a monk? Sorry to have rattled anyones cage.

 

If you said ALL governments don't work, and ALL governments are corrupt, then proceeded to spread misinformation to try and spread that same feeling; then yes, I would say you hate government. The fact of the matter is, the calls to destroy religion are just as oppressive as the claims as have been made against religion. There are millions of people in the world that WANT to carry on in blind faith. It helps them make it through the day, and countless horrible situations. Simply put, those that don't like religion shouldn't practice it. But that doesn't give them the right to try and ruin it for others.

[CarsonZi]

If you said ALL governments don't work, and ALL governments are corrupt, then proceeded to spread misinformation to try and spread that same feeling; then yes, I would say you hate government. The fact of the matter is, the calls to destroy religion are just as oppressive as the claims as have been made against religion. There are millions of people in the world that WANT to carry on in blind faith. It helps them make it through the day, and countless horrible situations. Simply put, those that don't like religion shouldn't practice it. But that doesn't give them the right to try and ruin it for others.

WELL SAID!

[Stigweard]

If you said ALL governments don't work, and ALL governments are corrupt, then proceeded to spread misinformation to try and spread that same feeling; then yes, I would say you hate government. The fact of the matter is, the calls to destroy religion are just as oppressive as the claims as have been made against religion. There are millions of people in the world that WANT to carry on in blind faith. It helps them make it through the day, and countless horrible situations. Simply put, those that don't like religion shouldn't practice it. But that doesn't give them the right to try and ruin it for others.

 

I will continue your excellent post by saying that, as per the thread's title, we have to be practical and realistic. In the immediate short term, even if we wanted to, there is no way possible for religions to be abolished. So we have to work with the reality of the situation at hand and explore workable initiatives to try and resolve the discordant manifestations of interfaith disharmonies.

 

And we have to be balanced with the progress. On one hand we do need to have the discerning analysis of folks like Ralis and Goldisheavy etc. who can see where the problems may lay. But if all we do is sit back in our seats and cast judgements based on our 'enlightened' perception then we are hypocritically perpetrating the same 'wrongs' as the religions we are condemning. So on the other hand we also need the folks who can bridge the traditional gaps and bring people together in sincere dialogue in order to co-create practical solutions.

 

The reality is true lasting change cannot be forced on people; they have to want to change and they have to feel that the initiative for that change is coming from themselves not from some bunch of holier-than-thou intelligencia. Hence events like the Interfaith Summit are the frontline of this fundamental change; bringing the traditional stakeholders together in a well structured and inclusive format so that they can find areas of agreement and contribute to formation of a consensus action plan.

[goldisheavy]

we have to be practical and realistic.

 

If by practical you mean "concretely and tangibly achievable in the short term", then depending on your point of view, there may not be anything practical that can be done if we conflict with a definition of practicality as something that people have to change.

 

So if some people call for change, that can be seen as a call for practicality in a sense that change is often concrete and tangible, and is recognized as something practical. On the other hand, if everyone believes that there is no way anyone will want to change anything, and the only realistic thing is to just get people with conflicting points of view to talk to each other, that can be seen as practical in a sense of being achievable, but not practical in a sense of something significantly changing.

 

This is subtle point I am trying to make and I worry that I am getting lost in the words here. If what I am saying here makes no sense, please ignore it.

 

But if all we do is sit back in our seats and cast judgements based on our 'enlightened' perception then we are hypocritically perpetrating the same 'wrongs' as the religions we are condemning.

 

I hope not. For example, if I deem attacking people to be bad, and I refrain from attacking them, then I don't think I am a hypocrite just because I don't get a job as a cop. Similarly, if I believe that greed is bad, and I refrain from accumulating a vast mountain of material treasure, I don't believe I am a hypocrite just because I don't donate or I don't work for Salvation Army or Red Cross.

 

On the other hand, those who do work in Red Cross, are often, or perhaps even always, wonderful people and I have nothing against them. Not only that, but I sometimes like support them in various, but perhaps small ways.

 

I have this silly belief that leading a virtuous life is easy and organic and doesn't require a lot of strain or doing. That doesn't mean that those who engage in strenuous doing are lacking in virtue! The key phrase there is "does not require" (and not for example something like "necessitates avoiding strain and doing" -- I don't take this position).

 

So on the other hand we also need the folks who can bridge the traditional gaps and bring people together in sincere dialogue in order to co-create practical solutions.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

The reality is true lasting change cannot be forced on people; they have to want to change and they have to feel that the initiative for that change is coming from themselves not from some bunch of holier-than-thou intelligencia.

 

Of course! That's why I have a problem with political activism and religions in the first place -- it seems like those activities are coercive in nature. I also hope that intelligencia is not getting a bum rep of being "holier-than-thou" just because of its penchant for reasoning. Not everyone who loves reason takes a "holier-than-thou" attitude. But at the same time, I do think some modest level tension between those who love reason and those who disdain reason is ineliminable. If you have a solution for this, please let me know.

 

I also love mystery. In my view mystery and reason are one whole and are not in conflict.

 

I think the best we can do is to turn down the fire a notch or five. I don't think we can completely eliminate heat from the equation of life. Maybe we can eliminate 2nd and 3rd degree burns. I don't know. On some days I think nothing can ever change no matter what. On others I am very optimistic that the suffering can be tangibly reduced in the world.

Edited February 24, 2009 by goldisheavy