On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:07 PM, Michael wrote:
--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not imagining anything about you Michael, I just go by what you
say.
No I think thats hard to do. Words almost always trigger divers
responses according to the associations we attach to them -consciously
or unconsciously. You cannot be indifferent: I was specifically
reacting to this sentence (Message #171715):
'Well, no I'm not a bliss-kitten bhakti and I don't aspire to any sort
of contrived devotion a la the Hari Khrishnas (or bhaktis in general).
But yes guru-yoga does play a very important part of my own life, but
not in the way you seem to be imagining it.'
As if devotion has to be contrived! As if you even have to aspire for
it! Its nothing of that sort. And why Hare Krishna (and quickly add
Bhaktas in general)?
Mike, you were asking me about guru-yoga as if that meant I should be
having some sort of devotion towards a guru-figure but I see no
reason--and definitely no advantage--to dividing reality for love or
devotions sake.
And again you speak of Guru Yoga as important to you, but not the way
I IMAGINE. So how would I have imagined it?
We could go back and forth on this one all day. The best way to
understand any practice is to check it out yourself and receive
teachings from those who have experience in that area. However
approaching a teaching with a bias towards proving it wrong usually
isn't a great way to investigate something. Therefore, if sometime in
the future such a practice rocks your boat, check it out, then see
what you get.
While at the same time make fun of anyone 'following' a preceptor - or
rather portraying this as the main problem of religion - which in any
case you keep on redefining as you go along. Like in the case of Mao -
Mao as a religious leader is equated with theism, whereas he was
clearly an atheist
No. All I am saying about Mao--yes he was an atheist--he became a god
to 100's of millions. His book of sayings, the little red book, became
like a bible to many, many people:
In October 1966, Mao's Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, which
was known as the Little Red Book was published. Party members were
encouraged to carry a copy with them and possession was almost
mandatory as a criterion for membership. Over the years, Mao's image
became displayed almost everywhere, present in homes, offices and
shops. His quotations were typographically emphasised by putting them
in boldface or red type in even the most obscure writings. Music from
the period emphasized Mao's stature, as did children's rhymes. The
phrase Long Live Chairman Mao for ten thousand years was commonly
heard during the era, which was traditionally a phrase reserved for
the reigning Emperor.
After the Cultural Revolution, there are some people who still worship
Mao in family altars or even temples for Mao.[35]
And no, I am not trying to redefine things as I go along, I am merely
attempting to clarify my points from some casual remarks I initially
made which are being over-parsed to the point of bearing no
resemblance whatsoever to my own POV. Actually Mao was not the type of
person I was thinking of when I made my original casual comments, but
it is interesting what can happen when someone becomes a god and is
the head of a government.
- while Buddhism is redefined as atheism (we can
talk about if Buddhism is Atheism, but if you believe in an Absolute
or Unity consciousness (Unity with what?) its not atheism to me.
Sorry, but to me this is a big confusion about language.
There are theistic Buddhists and there are some low forms of Buddhism
which involve even worship of Buddha as a god type figure. They seem
to me to be deviations.
You seemed to non-sequitur on to different POV completely from
what I was talking about. It's kinda hard to respond to someone who
didn't seem to get the gist of what you were saying in the first
place.
I hardly think the type of Theists we have to worry about are various
Hindu (or Christian, Jewish or Sufi, etc.) saints!
Well you were talking about God men.
I was thinking more of a different type of god worshipper, say like
George W. Bush or those from the House of Saud or the European leaders
who lead the Crusades.
It's adherents at
an entirely different developmental stage who seem to be the ones
causing problems, both in the present and in the past.
I could agree with that easily - but thats not what you said.
Development - high and low - is a new aspect you are bringing in now.
No Mike, I'm just clarifying where I'm coming from, that's all.
I actually suspect, based on things you've shared in the past, that
we
actually have quite a bit in common.
Most probably we do have a lot of things in common.
Bhakti type approaches were just
never my cup of tea, that's all.
Neither were they mine. I'm not the big bhajan singer or pujari - no.
BUT, big but, bhakti is something that happens to you. When I asked
around, did you ever weep for God - hard to explain, but if it happens
you would know, it was out of curiosity. Its not something to show, or
to actually talk or boast about. But I was curios if it happened. Its
not something you can induce, or take glycerin.
Maybe you would need a master who can induce it in you - if your
master has love it just catches on like fire. So really speaking, from
my mind I am not a Bhakta at all - but from my heart I am. I most
certainly do have a specific relationship to certain Hindu Gods
/Goddesses - some stronger, some less. Its an inner thing, its just
the way it is. They are more like friends.
The whole drippy eyed bliss trip, while I do see it can have some
positive aspects--yes I've applied such paths and was taught them by
various teachers (and yes they can bring you to tears--although not
necessarily for god)--they seem more for renunciates and people who
don't have sex. The way they are practiced in traditions I find useful
however are not connected to a god or gods, it's simply staring into
the world as bliss riding on emptiness in order to discover and
integrate emptiness.
Of course the downside to either is some sort of relative bliss
addiction.
