On Mar 30, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Michael wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Michael wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
I actually suspect, based on things you've shared in the past, that
we
actually have quite a bit in common. Bhakti type approaches were
just
never my cup of tea, that's all.
On a second thought: My reaction is simply the insight, that I donot
actually want to change you or anyone here. If its not your cup of
tea
its not your cup of tea. If it was, we wouldn't need to discuss
it, it
would just be obvious. I OTOH have not need in proving anything
about
myself either - if you think I am stupidly attached to a dual view,
while the nondual is highest, (btw Willy is right - Buddhism is most
certainly not nondualistic )I am okay, its okay to be stupid ;-) I
have my own insights, and I follow them, no need really to share.
Thats why it is futile.
What would be interesting would be to hear your own insight as to
what
the worship of god, gods and goddesses has done for humanity--and
other life on this planet--throughout history. Has it decreased
suffering or has it increased it?
Can't answer that one, no way to compare really. You could ask the
same question about science. While I agree it has decreased suffering,
it also has let the planet to the verge of extinction.
Well I don't know that we can say science is responsible, instead
human beings using science along with questionable morals and lack of
any real sense of connectedness to others seems the root problem.
And what of science and god,
gods and goddesses? Are god, gods or goddesses considered higher or
more special than humans or other forms of sentient life?
Well God is usually considered to be the highest ideal of life. But I
think, the way you phrase your questions clearly shows a big gap of
undestanding. Would you rephrase your questions and substitute it
instead of 'god, gods goddesses' with 'essence of consciousness' or
with anoher phrase like 'all that there is' or with simply 'the
Absolute'. How would this sound then? Childish?
Only if you value an absolute and if that provided something of value
for society. In many ways, an absolute would be an extreme. Esp. if it
ignores the relative.
So if it is placed in the position of the "highest ideal of life" and
given that cherishing the absolute is an extreme, I can also see that
this could cause some major problems for those whose development isn't
inclined to spiritual practice--currently the majority of this
planet's humans.
In terms of spiritual practice regarding an absolute, I'd also be
concerned that taking any extreme as a key part of spiritual practice
could be problematic as one would hope the human physical and subtle
nervous systems would prefer a balanced more middle way rather than
some cosmic personality superimposed on our nervous systems. However
having said that, I'd also think that some wisdom deities, like
Saraswati for example, could be beneficial as part of a practice. The
maha- aspect of numerous Hindu deities are balanced pairs, when
practiced in a balanced way. That's tantra, balance thru opposites.
Should temples throughout
India, Nepal and other places be allowed to sacrifice animals and/or
humans to gain the boon or favor from some god or goddess?
I am strictly against animal sacrifices. I have friends in India who
were actively fighting against it yes.
I too question it. In this country it's mainly practiced by a religion
known as Voudoun. One hears the most horrible rumors. They worship a
pantheon of gods known as Loa, like with Hindu deities some are
benign, some are fun and some are malignant or violent.
Are there
some forms of god that are naturally disruptive of human and other
life? If yes, what does that mean?
My opinion is, that it very much depends on the attitude of the
worshiper. Sure there are different spirit beings, read the gita.
I also have little interest in Vaishnavism--really most of the
puritanical and sentimental eastern trips don't do that much for me
which isn't to say there aren't some interesting things there. The
Hare Krishnas in this country are fabulous vegetarian cooks.
Should Indian sacrificial wars still be allowed to 'blow of steam'
and
re-establish balance with nature?
Sacrificial wars? Never heard about it. No. of course not.
Yeah, they went on until fairly recently, like 75 years ago and may
still in secret. They're meant to be mock wars but I'm told many a
time they get bloody and people are killed, often rendering
participants covered in human blood. And of course it's considered
highly auspicious to die at one of these battles. Sick.
Should texts which once promulgated human and or animal sacrifices
still be considered valid or even useable? If yes, what are the
implications for karma?
No, I am against it. I know that these were en vogue in the past in
almost all religions, but since then we have come a long way. I think
that animal sacrifice should be forbidden, as I am a strict
vegetarian. Btw. those sacrifices are hardly any more executed in
India, there is the famous exception of Kaligat in Calcutta, and I am
certainly not drawn to this place. Slaughter of animals is much more
common in the atheistic west. No karma, no sin, we do just what
pleases us humans.
Well I do eat meat as I look at potential food items from the view of
'depth and span'. Humans have more depth and less span. Animals for
food have less depth and greater span. Guess which one gets eaten? :-)
I do think animal sacrifice is more widespread in India we know. It's
certainly still popular in Nepal, but I do believe Buddhism has been a
positive influence in that regard, slowing evolving beyond.
