|
Home > Archive > Yoga > July 2006 > If everything is God,,, Bad is God too,,,
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
If everything is God,,, Bad is God too,,,
|
|
|
| Hi Omjaroo,
You say the same things. But they are not correct....Look what you are
saying;
"There is only God. The character of everything that exists (and
> everything that doesn't) is in the nature and substance of God.
> Everything everywhere is and as and of God. For example: God is Good.
> Everything is Good... God is Life, God is Love, God is Intelligence,
> God is Spirit, God is Soul, God is Principle, God is Truth...
> [reference: Emmet Fox, "Alter Your Life", The Seven Main Aspects of
> God.]
Please do not try any help from any references,,, References mean
nothing into reality...Because reality is a quite different fact...And
one more thing, what is that everything that doesn`t exist???? What a
salad of words???
If there is only God, Bad is God also, ugly is God also, Hate is God
also, darkness is God also,
if life is God, death is God also,,,If God is Principle, Caos is God
also,,,If Intelligence is God,,, Stupidity is God also,,,
There is no spirit, no Soul at all,,,These are all in human mind...But
they are all illusions,,,
I would like to remain to the people who think God has only limited
aspects and the good ones only,,,These are not correct,,, because when
one tries to show God only in these limited aspects this means that
he/she is trying to put limits onto the GREATNESS and smallness of God
in his way of thinking,,, But God can not be put into any LIMIT or
FORM,,,
Because non of these aspects alone may represent God... God is the
TOTAL OF ALL THE EXISTENCE...Only of the existence, anything that does
not exist can only be images, images has nothing with God,,,because
they do not exist....Please let us be mindfull...
Please kindly keep these in your mind , and hope you will not make the
same mistakes anymore!!!
Respectfully,
Puma
| |
| howdydave 2006-07-21, 9:25 pm |
| Howdy Puma!
"A salad of words" is EXACTLY RIGHT!
IMO that is because the words/language
we learn and use are dependant on dualism.
The chances of attempting to communicate
the meaning of non-dualism by means of
language are, at best, slim to remote.
The best you can do is metaphores, similies
and parallelisms.
That is the difference between "acquired knowledge"
and "direct insight."
BTW: Is "bad" a REALITY or a PERCEPTION OF reality?
They are not the same thing.
Dave
puma wrote:
> Hi Omjaroo,
>
> You say the same things. But they are not correct....Look what you are
> saying;
>
> "There is only God. The character of everything that exists (and
>
> Please do not try any help from any references,,, References mean
> nothing into reality...Because reality is a quite different fact...And
> one more thing, what is that everything that doesn`t exist???? What a
> salad of words???
>
> If there is only God, Bad is God also, ugly is God also, Hate is God
> also, darkness is God also,
> if life is God, death is God also,,,If God is Principle, Caos is God
> also,,,If Intelligence is God,,, Stupidity is God also,,,
>
> There is no spirit, no Soul at all,,,These are all in human mind...But
> they are all illusions,,,
>
> I would like to remain to the people who think God has only limited
> aspects and the good ones only,,,These are not correct,,, because when
> one tries to show God only in these limited aspects this means that
> he/she is trying to put limits onto the GREATNESS and smallness of God
> in his way of thinking,,, But God can not be put into any LIMIT or
> FORM,,,
> Because non of these aspects alone may represent God... God is the
> TOTAL OF ALL THE EXISTENCE...Only of the existence, anything that does
> not exist can only be images, images has nothing with God,,,because
> they do not exist....Please let us be mindfull...
>
> Please kindly keep these in your mind , and hope you will not make the
> same mistakes anymore!!!
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Puma
| |
| omjaroo 2006-07-22, 2:26 am |
| puma wrote:
> You say the same things.
Yes I do.
It's like my twelve-step sponsor said when I asked him why he says the
same thing over and over again, at each meeting. He said, "Jared that's
how brainwashing works. You say something long enough and loud enough
and eventually people will believe it. "
"But isn't brain washing bad?"
"Brainwashing in it's self isn't bad, after all it's one of the ways we
learn. You can brainwash with lies and that's bad. Or you can brainwash
with the Truth and that's Good."
>But they are not correct....
Puma,
Sometimes our conversations remind me of certain discussions with my
teenage son :-)
"Son this is that way this is"
"No it's not"
"Son, how can you say that? You have no experience with this. No
knowledge, training or awareness of this.
"Yes I do"
"I am telling you what I know is based on my first hand experience,
personal knowledge and years of training in this subject. And this is
the way it is."
"No it's not"
"Why do you say it's not?"
"Because"
"Because why?"
"Because it's not, that's why"
Its a reasoning or method of dialectics I call denial. I have spent
many years myself using this method to understand my universe. By using
the assumption that everything is a lie or false, I deny everything and
see what happens. Whatever is left over, whatever survives the denial
must then be true.
I have learned and am currently practicing another form of dialectics
that I will call affirmative reasoning. That is, I take a proposition
like, "there is only God, and God is good, so there is only Good" and I
plug that into everything see, think and feel. Everything (logic,
reasoning, action) in my world is run through this "affirmative filter"
and whatever appears on the other side of the filter then must be real.
This model might apply to my son like this.
Because I intelligent (and frightened) and do not wish to trust my
father, I will deny all that he says to me, until my denial (actions)
is either affirmed by positive consequences or disproven by negative
consequences.
Or.
Because my father loves me and would never want to hurt me, I will put
my trust in him and affirm all that he says to me as true, until my
affirmation (actions) is either affirmed by positive consequences or
disproven by negative consequences.
Both of these methods will work. But I am here to tell you one is a
whole lot more painful and taxing than the other. In my experience
denial is by far the most commonly used method. However since
affirmation is in alignment with what is True it works better, is more
pleasant and sustaining on a personal (spiritual) level. However it can
and will often be in direct opposition to the "race mind" and/or many
social institutions. While being good for the Soul this can be
decidedly bad (ala Jesus, Joan of Arc, et. al.) for the "body".
>From the tone of your replies it appears you have a most zealous
disagreement with what I am saying. Personally, I don't see that we are
in any disagreement at all. In my thinking your responses mostly
affirm (on the relative level) precisely what I am saying. I have
tried a number of times to explain but I no longer know how to convey
what I am saying to you. Perhaps some other members of the group can
help me out in this. Howdy Dave has on several occasions and I
appreciate his comments. But since my posts on this topic are rarely
acknowledged and almost never debated by anyone but you, I don't know
how much help will be forth coming. So we may have to go it alone, you
and I :-)
So my suggestion to you is this, if you wish to prove/disprove the
substance of what I am saying then try some affirmative reasoning; try
making it work. Still better try making it work for you, because you
want this knowledge for yourself, not as an exercise in denying Jared
(or anyone else) Or keep on right on denying (default) and see what
that gets you. Your choice. I've made mine.
If you have no idea how to make it work (and how many of us learn this
in school ;-) then check out the various references I provide (that's
why they are there) and I am sure this will help. If you are atheist,
agnostic or do not wish to speak in terms of God, then let me know and
I will make a point of trying to provide non-God flavored references
:-)
Good luck,
Jared
o
^
www.omjaroo.com
PS.
Here's a timely example of what I am talking about from the kitchen of
omjaroo.
I was just dealing with a bunch of flies in my kitchen and feeling very
much put upon and like killing the little pests.
Two scenarios
1. Flys on my counter. Flies are bad, they are dirty I must kill flies.
2. Flies are alive. God is life. I must sanctify all Life. God is
good, flies must be good. Now that I think of it flies indicate to me
where I have missed wiping some food or such off of the counter. I will
get a sponge and clean my mess and the flies won't bother to land there
anymore. Flies have helped me be a cleaner better person who better
reflects my existence in God. Now I will get a towel, open the back
door and chase these little pests out of here :-)
| |
|
| On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:35:56 -0700, omjaroo <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> disagreement with what I am saying. Personally, I don't see that we are
> in any disagreement at all. In my thinking your responses mostly
> affirm (on the relative level) precisely what I am saying. I have
> tried a number of times to explain but I no longer know how to convey
> what I am saying to you. Perhaps some other members of the group can
> help me out in this. Howdy Dave has on several occasions and I
> appreciate his comments. But since my posts on this topic are rarely
> acknowledged and almost never debated by anyone but you, I don't know
> how much help will be forth coming. So we may have to go it alone, you
> and I :-)
>
Personally, my friend, I find neither your nor Puma's position satisfying.
I can't say much about the whole cosmos, because I haven't experienced the
whole cosmos. The same thing is true of God, if there be such an entity. I
have experienced human life on this planet for 63 years, so I'd rather
talk about that. What we see in the world is a mirror of ourselves.
Mostly, what we are seeing right now is our stupidity and greed, which
threaten to drive us to extinction. Stupidity and greed are real, but we
are not all stupid or greedy. In fact, I don't think most people are.
Stupidity and greed are not, in fact, our true nature--they are
deformations of it that have gotten out of hand and now threaten to
destroy us. Need I base a theology on this? I don't think so.
--Don
| |
|
| Don,
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I agree with you,,,What else
can I say?
You have clearly indicated the situation that we are in now. Thanks my
friend...
Puma
Don wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:35:56 -0700, omjaroo <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Personally, my friend, I find neither your nor Puma's position satisfying.
> I can't say much about the whole cosmos, because I haven't experienced the
> whole cosmos. The same thing is true of God, if there be such an entity. I
> have experienced human life on this planet for 63 years, so I'd rather
> talk about that. What we see in the world is a mirror of ourselves.
> Mostly, what we are seeing right now is our stupidity and greed, which
> threaten to drive us to extinction. Stupidity and greed are real, but we
> are not all stupid or greedy. In fact, I don't think most people are.
> Stupidity and greed are not, in fact, our true nature--they are
> deformations of it that have gotten out of hand and now threaten to
> destroy us. Need I base a theology on this? I don't think so.
>
> --Don
| |
|
| Dave,
What we`ve got here is a failure to communicate!...
What is the meaning of IMO?
International Marine Organisation? Or,
International Mathematical ,Olympiads?
Metaphores, as far as I know, can be used when one likes to make
his/her ideas being accepted by others. Because no one takes any
metaphore seriously...But they accept it subconsciously...That is,
metaphores help us to induce others in a secret way.
As to the( reality and perception of reality)... When we run on this
culvar,it is obvious that
we only have our perceptions, that is by our perceptions how our
consciousnes works...That is the only way...For our non real concepts
as to SOUL, SPIRIT,HOT, COLD,etc., we also use our perceptions...So
they are all perceptions...REAL or NON REAL,,,Let us put it the way
Chenev has said, all our acts conscious or unconscious are
reflexes...So that is it..This is the reality...if not ,same
applies...No difference at all...
Respectfully,
Puma
Puma
howdydave wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Howdy Puma!
>
> "A salad of words" is EXACTLY RIGHT!
>
> IMO that is because the words/language
> we learn and use are dependant on dualism.
>
> The chances of attempting to communicate
> the meaning of non-dualism by means of
> language are, at best, slim to remote.
> The best you can do is metaphores, similies
> and parallelisms.
>
> That is the difference between "acquired knowledge"
> and "direct insight."
>
> BTW: Is "bad" a REALITY or a PERCEPTION OF reality?
> They are not the same thing.
>
> Dave
>
>
> puma wrote:
| |
|
| Jared,
If we both have the same opinion then no need to argue...In that case
you have to see that all the negative aspects also belongs to God...But
you are trying to limit God into your special logic and thoughts, in
all good... But this is not fare ,,,briefly this is what I am saying...
With compassion,
Puma
omjaroo wrote:
> puma wrote:
>
> Yes I do.
>
> It's like my twelve-step sponsor said when I asked him why he says the
> same thing over and over again, at each meeting. He said, "Jared that's
> how brainwashing works. You say something long enough and loud enough
> and eventually people will believe it. "
> "But isn't brain washing bad?"
> "Brainwashing in it's self isn't bad, after all it's one of the ways we
> learn. You can brainwash with lies and that's bad. Or you can brainwash
> with the Truth and that's Good."
>
>
> Puma,
>
> Sometimes our conversations remind me of certain discussions with my
> teenage son :-)
>
> "Son this is that way this is"
> "No it's not"
> "Son, how can you say that? You have no experience with this. No
> knowledge, training or awareness of this.
> "Yes I do"
> "I am telling you what I know is based on my first hand experience,
> personal knowledge and years of training in this subject. And this is
> the way it is."
> "No it's not"
> "Why do you say it's not?"
> "Because"
> "Because why?"
> "Because it's not, that's why"
>
> Its a reasoning or method of dialectics I call denial. I have spent
> many years myself using this method to understand my universe. By using
> the assumption that everything is a lie or false, I deny everything and
> see what happens. Whatever is left over, whatever survives the denial
> must then be true.
>
> I have learned and am currently practicing another form of dialectics
> that I will call affirmative reasoning. That is, I take a proposition
> like, "there is only God, and God is good, so there is only Good" and I
> plug that into everything see, think and feel. Everything (logic,
> reasoning, action) in my world is run through this "affirmative filter"
> and whatever appears on the other side of the filter then must be real.
>
>
> This model might apply to my son like this.
>
> Because I intelligent (and frightened) and do not wish to trust my
> father, I will deny all that he says to me, until my denial (actions)
> is either affirmed by positive consequences or disproven by negative
> consequences.
>
> Or.
>
> Because my father loves me and would never want to hurt me, I will put
> my trust in him and affirm all that he says to me as true, until my
> affirmation (actions) is either affirmed by positive consequences or
> disproven by negative consequences.
>
> Both of these methods will work. But I am here to tell you one is a
> whole lot more painful and taxing than the other. In my experience
> denial is by far the most commonly used method. However since
> affirmation is in alignment with what is True it works better, is more
> pleasant and sustaining on a personal (spiritual) level. However it can
> and will often be in direct opposition to the "race mind" and/or many
> social institutions. While being good for the Soul this can be
> decidedly bad (ala Jesus, Joan of Arc, et. al.) for the "body".
>
> disagreement with what I am saying. Personally, I don't see that we are
> in any disagreement at all. In my thinking your responses mostly
> affirm (on the relative level) precisely what I am saying. I have
> tried a number of times to explain but I no longer know how to convey
> what I am saying to you. Perhaps some other members of the group can
> help me out in this. Howdy Dave has on several occasions and I
> appreciate his comments. But since my posts on this topic are rarely
> acknowledged and almost never debated by anyone but you, I don't know
> how much help will be forth coming. So we may have to go it alone, you
> and I :-)
>
> So my suggestion to you is this, if you wish to prove/disprove the
> substance of what I am saying then try some affirmative reasoning; try
> making it work. Still better try making it work for you, because you
> want this knowledge for yourself, not as an exercise in denying Jared
> (or anyone else) Or keep on right on denying (default) and see what
> that gets you. Your choice. I've made mine.
>
> If you have no idea how to make it work (and how many of us learn this
> in school ;-) then check out the various references I provide (that's
> why they are there) and I am sure this will help. If you are atheist,
> agnostic or do not wish to speak in terms of God, then let me know and
> I will make a point of trying to provide non-God flavored references
> :-)
>
> Good luck,
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
> www.omjaroo.com
>
> PS.
>
> Here's a timely example of what I am talking about from the kitchen of
> omjaroo.
>
> I was just dealing with a bunch of flies in my kitchen and feeling very
> much put upon and like killing the little pests.
>
> Two scenarios
>
> 1. Flys on my counter. Flies are bad, they are dirty I must kill flies.
>
>
> 2. Flies are alive. God is life. I must sanctify all Life. God is
> good, flies must be good. Now that I think of it flies indicate to me
> where I have missed wiping some food or such off of the counter. I will
> get a sponge and clean my mess and the flies won't bother to land there
> anymore. Flies have helped me be a cleaner better person who better
> reflects my existence in God. Now I will get a towel, open the back
> door and chase these little pests out of here :-)
| |
|
|
"puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153512890.493216.14610@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> If there is only God, Bad is God also, ugly is God also, Hate is God
> also, darkness is God also,
> if life is God, death is God also,,,If God is Principle, Caos is God
> also,,,If Intelligence is God,,, Stupidity is God also,,,
>
what is stupid for one is wise for another. what is lunch for one is life
saved for another.
one expects better than rhetorical trash from you, puma.
> There is no spirit, no Soul at all,,,These are all in human mind...But
> they are all illusions,,,
>
these are your obsessions. deal with them yourself rather than haranguing
others. whether they are there or not, and whether they mean the same things
to different people, and whether it makes any difference to anyone, is
something you might have to contemplate on.
| |
| howdydave 2006-07-22, 4:25 pm |
| IMO = In My Opinion
puma wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dave,
>
> What we`ve got here is a failure to communicate!...
>
> What is the meaning of IMO?
>
> International Marine Organisation? Or,
> International Mathematical ,Olympiads?
>
> Metaphores, as far as I know, can be used when one likes to make
> his/her ideas being accepted by others. Because no one takes any
> metaphore seriously...But they accept it subconsciously...That is,
> metaphores help us to induce others in a secret way.
>
> As to the( reality and perception of reality)... When we run on this
> culvar,it is obvious that
> we only have our perceptions, that is by our perceptions how our
> consciousnes works...That is the only way...For our non real concepts
> as to SOUL, SPIRIT,HOT, COLD,etc., we also use our perceptions...So
> they are all perceptions...REAL or NON REAL,,,Let us put it the way
> Chenev has said, all our acts conscious or unconscious are
> reflexes...So that is it..This is the reality...if not ,same
> applies...No difference at all...
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Puma
>
> Puma
>
>
>
> howdydave wrote:
| |
| omjaroo 2006-07-22, 4:25 pm |
| Puma,
You created an original post of 323 words carefully explaining how I
was wrong in another post.
I responded, point for point, with 787 words of original thought,
explanations, personal suggestions and a couple of real life stories
about me and my pursuit of yoga ideas.
To this you responded with 60 words which said in effect; Jared we
don't need to argue, you are wrong.
Would you consider this a good conversation?
Jared
o
^
puma wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Jared,
>
> If we both have the same opinion then no need to argue...In that case
> you have to see that all the negative aspects also belongs to God...But
> you are trying to limit God into your special logic and thoughts, in
> all good... But this is not fare ,,,briefly this is what I am saying...
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>
>
> omjaroo wrote:
| |
|
| On 2006-07-22 07:57:55 -0700, "anon" <me@privacy.net> said:
> "puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153512890.493216.14610@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> what is stupid for one is wise for another. what is lunch for one is
> life saved for another.
>
> one expects better than rhetorical trash from you, puma.
Yea but the beauty of defining *god* as everything is that it renders
the concept meaningless. Very liberating.
>
>
> these are your obsessions. deal with them yourself rather than
> haranguing others. whether they are there or not, and whether they mean
> the same things to different people, and whether it makes any
> difference to anyone, is something you might have to contemplate on.
Exactly. The insight from yoga is that there is a great unifying
positive spirit behind the shifting *world of appearances*. Further
more, the *world of appearances* is for the most part determined by our
lowly perceptions of it. That suggests that we should take every
action possible to ensure the *world of appearances* is processed in a
way that allows everyone in it to prosper and thrive. This does not
mean burying/ignoring the illusions of the human mind. It means
learning to adapt the human mind towards actions in harmony with the
human spirit.
Maya may be an illusion, but it is our illusion, and we had better
learn how to act in it rather that escape from it.
--
~Stu
| |
|
| Hi jared,
If we use the same logical principles then we may easily understand
each other...
If we have different logical principles then we have a failure in our
communication...
It seems that second aspect applies here so that we have a hard time to
understand each other...
Therefore it is not substantial how many words we have used on the
subject, the substantial part here is that we have a communication
problem.
..
In this world we see people trying to kill each other...In this world
people trying not to show any respect for others...In these world
people are trying to cheat others,,,In this world many people are dying
from hunger...In this world many people are dying from many unsolved
ilness...In this world we loose our loved ones...
These and all same sort of situations, how to be classified? NICE,
GOOD, or BAD...or BEAUTIFUL!!!
If we try to see only good it does not help us! Because we still have
BAD with us...Unless we do not try to see The UGLY, THE BAD, The
CORRUPTED, The CHEATER,The LIER, We can not solve these problems, if we
accept them as a BEAUTY only, thiese will go on forever my friend...
This is what I am trying to explain here...If you have the same ideas
then no need to argue...If not we have to convince each other,,, if
here we can not convince each other even on this net media, how can we
assume that world will reach a peace?
Respectfully,
Puma
omjaroo wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Puma,
>
> You created an original post of 323 words carefully explaining how I
> was wrong in another post.
>
> I responded, point for point, with 787 words of original thought,
> explanations, personal suggestions and a couple of real life stories
> about me and my pursuit of yoga ideas.
>
> To this you responded with 60 words which said in effect; Jared we
> don't need to argue, you are wrong.
>
> Would you consider this a good conversation?
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
>
> puma wrote:
| |
|
|
Anon,
I see that you just want to say something,,,just a word, no matter
what it is!!!
Tell me then, if people are killing each other is this good for you???
If you have lost a dear friend of yours,does this make you happy?
If hunger kills many people somewhere in this world, is this a fun for
you?
As a matter of fact TRASH are the words that you have to put one after
the other...
So be mindfull,do not try just to say a word . First you have to
think, realize and then reply...Don`t be excited!! Try to understand
.....Be logical,,,be reasonable....
With compassion,
Puma
anon wrote:
> "puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153512890.493216.14610@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> what is stupid for one is wise for another. what is lunch for one is life
> saved for another.
>
> one expects better than rhetorical trash from you, puma.
>
>
> these are your obsessions. deal with them yourself rather than haranguing
> others. whether they are there or not, and whether they mean the same things
> to different people, and whether it makes any difference to anyone, is
> something you might have to contemplate on.
| |
|
|
"puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153605464.888100.122910@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anon,
>
> I see that you just want to say something,,,just a word, no matter
> what it is!!!
>
> Tell me then, if people are killing each other is this good for you???
>
> If you have lost a dear friend of yours,does this make you happy?
>
> If hunger kills many people somewhere in this world, is this a fun for
> you?
>
what's this got do with what i or you said (or did not say)? your tirades
against particular religious beliefs are trash. they show lack of
sensitivity to others. now you are bringing in dead friends and hungry
masses. and then you ask me to be clear in thinking and be logical.
> As a matter of fact TRASH are the words that you have to put one after
> the other...
>
cool it.
> So be mindfull,do not try just to say a word . First you have to
> think, realize and then reply...Don`t be excited!! Try to understand
> ....Be logical,,,be reasonable....
>
right. don't be excited.
your tirade for or against god, spirit etc is getting boring. think. be
reasonable.
| |
|
| Anon,
Regret to state that you have no idea about myself...
If you had, first of all you would realize that I am not against God
nor spirit...
Logic is the only one tool if we know how to use it...
IF EVERYTHING IS GOD, THEN BAD IS GOD TOO...I am very sorry for you
that you have not got this notion at all...Do you think that God always
does the good? If so you have to walk miles and miles...If God is
everything,,,this means bad also belong to God. But only conditioned
minds think that God only does good...This is because religious
conditionings...You have to think about this, or meditate on it...
As to the Friends matter,you still have no idea of my reply...
At number 11, you have stated that
((what is stupid for one is wise for another. what is lunch for one is
life
saved for another.))
So to show how wrong is your above assumption, I have asked several
question that almost every normal person`s answers are to be the
same...
So please be so kind to understand instead trying to reply negatively
on my ideas...
Be cool, be mindfull, be understanding, do not get wrong, I am not
agaist God or I am not against any body...All I am against is cheating
people,and wrong doers,as bombing beirut
or Baghdat or anywhere in the world...
I hope this time you may show a little effort to understand what I am
talking about...
Respectfully,
Puma
anon wrote:
> "puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153605464.888100.122910@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> what's this got do with what i or you said (or did not say)? your tirades
> against particular religious beliefs are trash. they show lack of
> sensitivity to others. now you are bringing in dead friends and hungry
> masses. and then you ask me to be clear in thinking and be logical.
>
>
> cool it.
>
>
> right. don't be excited.
>
> your tirade for or against god, spirit etc is getting boring. think. be
> reasonable.
| |
|
|
"puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153658775.382962.216110@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> IF EVERYTHING IS GOD, THEN BAD IS GOD TOO...I am very sorry for you
> that you have not got this notion at all...Do you think that God always
> does the good? If so you have to walk miles and miles...If God is
> everything,,,this means bad also belong to God. But only conditioned
> minds think that God only does good...This is because religious
> conditionings...You have to think about this, or meditate on it...
where did i ever give out my views on god?
> Be cool, be mindfull, be understanding, do not get wrong, I am not
> agaist God or I am not against any body...All I am against is cheating
> people,and wrong doers,as bombing beirut
> or Baghdat or anywhere in the world...
>
you are constantly attacking other people's beliefs. now you are far
advanced than me. but if einstein starts making fun of and attacking
kindergarten students, it does not look good. whether god exists or not is
not proveable. why waste time on unproveable thing?
you are mking it sound as if others are for cheating and destruction of
baghdad. they are not. but as i have mentioned before, in today's world you
have to make a living. if you don't you are doing a disservice to your
children.
it is ok for someone to teach yoga free of cost, but it is also ok to charge
for it. because we all have to pay the rent. that is what i would call
"being understanding".
> I hope this time you may show a little effort to understand what I am
> talking about...
>
> Respectfully,
>
you are assuming the other party said something and then are attacking it. i
am only asking you to be more careful in attacking sensitive beliefs because
it is unproductive. that does not mean i hold those beliefs.
please provide a detailed version of what you wish to say about :
-God
-spirits
-reincarnation
-soul
| |
| NBennett 2006-07-23, 4:28 pm |
| this thread has turned into exactly what i dislike about organized
religion. each has the firm belief that their beliefs and only their
beliefs are correct and feel an obligation to "enlighten" the other
which has turned into attack the other.
it all appears to be very un-yoga-like to me and similar to the
colonization/missionary logic of white christians through history.
as an atheist, i believe nothing, but also accept that there's room for
all, or at least each has the right to their beliefs.
in my limited knowledge of the non-physical apsects of yoga, one word
comes to mind - ahimsa. non-injury. isn't deriding another for their
beliefs, and belittling those beliefs an injury?
i am not academic in this area, so i won't be drawn into this
discussion and be made to defend my beliefs or lack thereof.
i think this thread has crossed the line from discussion to attack and
it's not what i expect to see here. it's getting nasty in here. lighten
up folks.
nancy
puma wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi jared,
>
> If we use the same logical principles then we may easily understand
> each other...
>
> If we have different logical principles then we have a failure in our
> communication...
>
> It seems that second aspect applies here so that we have a hard time to
> understand each other...
>
> Therefore it is not substantial how many words we have used on the
> subject, the substantial part here is that we have a communication
> problem.
> .
>
> In this world we see people trying to kill each other...In this world
> people trying not to show any respect for others...In these world
> people are trying to cheat others,,,In this world many people are dying
> from hunger...In this world many people are dying from many unsolved
> ilness...In this world we loose our loved ones...
>
> These and all same sort of situations, how to be classified? NICE,
> GOOD, or BAD...or BEAUTIFUL!!!
>
> If we try to see only good it does not help us! Because we still have
> BAD with us...Unless we do not try to see The UGLY, THE BAD, The
> CORRUPTED, The CHEATER,The LIER, We can not solve these problems, if we
> accept them as a BEAUTY only, thiese will go on forever my friend...
>
> This is what I am trying to explain here...If you have the same ideas
> then no need to argue...If not we have to convince each other,,, if
> here we can not convince each other even on this net media, how can we
> assume that world will reach a peace?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Puma
> omjaroo wrote:
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2006-07-23, 9:25 pm |
| NBennett wrote:
> this thread has turned into exactly what i dislike about organized
> religion. each has the firm belief that their beliefs and only their
> beliefs are correct and feel an obligation to "enlighten" the other
> which has turned into attack the other.
> it all appears to be very un-yoga-like to me and similar to the
> colonization/missionary logic of white christians through history.
> as an atheist, i believe nothing, but also accept that there's room for
> all, or at least each has the right to their beliefs.
> in my limited knowledge of the non-physical apsects of yoga, one word
> comes to mind - ahimsa. non-injury. isn't deriding another for their
> beliefs, and belittling those beliefs an injury?
> i am not academic in this area, so i won't be drawn into this
> discussion and be made to defend my beliefs or lack thereof.
> i think this thread has crossed the line from discussion to attack and
> it's not what i expect to see here. it's getting nasty in here. lighten
> up folks.
>
> nancy
Thank you, Nancy. Yes, let's remember ahimsa. I'll try to stay out of
the discussion too.
S.
| |
|
| On 2006-07-23 15:21:11 -0700, Sevenhundred Elves
<sevenhundred@elves.invalid> said:
>
> Thank you, Nancy. Yes, let's remember ahimsa. I'll try to stay out of
> the discussion too.
I don't think the yama of ahimsa means to sit back passively if someone
challenges your beliefs. I agree that it is best to be cordial but
part of the fun and profit of this newsgroup is to discuss our
differences as well as our common love of yoga.
Though the rhetoric does get heated, all parties in this discussion
have been respectful of each other. This heat is a good thing. Of
course if we were all sitting at a table at a café I doubt we would
fall so easily into AD Hominun attacks, but somehow the nature of posts
moves this way. Gotta take these posts with a grain of salt. We all
know the parties involved, everyone has good intentions and good hearts.
An important aspect to the yogic path is bringing passion to the
practice. This niyama is called tapas.
--
~Stu
| |
| howdydave 2006-07-24, 2:25 am |
|
Stu wrote:
> On 2006-07-23 15:21:11 -0700, Sevenhundred Elves
<snip>
> An important aspect to the yogic path is bringing passion to the
> practice. This niyama is called tapas.
>
> --
> ~Stu
Howdy Stu!
Depends on what kind of yoga...
The second mean in Jnana is VAIRAGYA i.e.; dispassion/detachment.
After sufficient practice of the first mean (VIVEKA or discrimination),
the temporary, ephemeral nature of the world and its objects becomes
obvious and a natural lack of attraction to them takes place. This is
vairagya. One should then endeavor to become more dispassionate in
order to purify the mind and improve one's concentration and steadiness
of mind.
BTW: I pretty much pirated this text from:
http://www.yogaadvaita.org/text/jnana2.shtml
Dave
| |
| howdydave 2006-07-24, 2:25 am |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Stu wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Howdy Stu!
>
> Depends on what kind of yoga...
>
> The second mean in Jnana is VAIRAGYA i.e.; dispassion/detachment.
>
> After sufficient practice of the first mean (VIVEKA or discrimination),
> the temporary, ephemeral nature of the world and its objects becomes
> obvious and a natural lack of attraction to them takes place. This is
> vairagya. One should then endeavor to become more dispassionate in
> order to purify the mind and improve one's concentration and steadiness
> of mind.
>
> BTW: I pretty much pirated this text from:
> http://www.yogaadvaita.org/text/jnana2.shtml
>
> Dave
Then again...
That's MY path and it isn't right for everybody
Dave!
| |
|
| Anon,
I am here to exchange my thoughts and ideas on the subject matters put
forward by several members of this alt.yoga.
I am not here to fight or to insult others...
I do understand that you do not understand my views in their very
meanings...
All your saying regarding my views clearly indicate that you have not
understood what I am talking about...Where in the world I have attacked
the peoples` beliefs???
Arguments, thesis,problems,assumptions,hypotesis have nothing to do
with ATTACKING
....
I see that you have a tendency to misunderstand the my statements...
As I`ve clearly pointed out that I am not against God or any
entity,except I am against all cheaters, and I am against all
destroying ways and manners,example of this is the
idea of BOMBING BEIRUT, BOMBING BAGHDAT, BOMBING ANYWHERE IN THIS
WORLD... You even did not understand this simple idea of mine...So that
you are saying
that """you are mking it sound as if others are for cheating and
destruction of
> baghdad. they are not. but as i have mentioned before, in today's world you
> have to make a living. if you don't you are doing a disservice to your
> children."""
It seems you really did not understand what I am talking about,
otherwise you would not utter such a non sense,by stating that BOMBING
all those places is related to making a living!!!!!!!!...And otherwise
disservice to their children!!! WOW... One has to think over this
statement of yours....
Anon please before stating such a non sense think over it, if you
cannot solve the matter it is wise not indulging in it...
I am not advanced from anybody...And my purpose is not being advanced
from others...
my aim is to be honest, to tell the truth,and to understand all the
proleblems that human s are facing now...
I have not said there is no God,,, All I know that everything what we
have is a representation of God... This includes good and bad...I am
not against God...But I am not a person who has found God by any
religion,,,I am a person trying to see the existence and the forces
causing to it.
I am very sorry if I have been a cause to injure anybodies` feelings
regarding his/her religious beliefs. We have always this argument
between Jared and I myself...Jared knows very well what my ideas are,
and I also know his, but I would like to understand why Jared does not
want to declare his thoughts...And why he is covering up some of the
ideas pertaining to God...Because many times he has said that he also
had the same
ideas,,, but for some reason he is trying to see only the good parts of
God...
As to the spirits souls,reencarnation , I do not believe those as
Science also does not
support those...And scientifically these ideas are only in
peoples`mind,due to the conditionings previously earned...
Religiously I think I am closer to Buddhism, but in Buddhism also,
there are things that
do not fit to my experiences at all...I am against all cheaters, there
are religious cheaters too, you may see them easily,by watching the
religious fights going on...
I hope by this conversation of ours you may also have more info
regarding myself,and get to know each other better...
Respectfully,
Puma
anon wrote:
> "puma" <sesli.atbisey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153658775.382962.216110@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> where did i ever give out my views on god?
>
>
> you are constantly attacking other people's beliefs. now you are far
> advanced than me. but if einstein starts making fun of and attacking
> kindergarten students, it does not look good. whether god exists or not is
> not proveable. why waste time on unproveable thing?
>
> you are mking it sound as if others are for cheating and destruction of
> baghdad. they are not. but as i have mentioned before, in today's world you
> have to make a living. if you don't you are doing a disservice to your
> children.
>
> it is ok for someone to teach yoga free of cost, but it is also ok to charge
> for it. because we all have to pay the rent. that is what i would call
> "being understanding".
>
> you are assuming the other party said something and then are attacking it. i
> am only asking you to be more careful in attacking sensitive beliefs because
> it is unproductive. that does not mean i hold those beliefs.
>
> please provide a detailed version of what you wish to say about :
> -God
> -spirits
> -reincarnation
> -soul
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2006-07-24, 4:27 pm |
| Stu wrote:
> On 2006-07-23 15:21:11 -0700, Sevenhundred Elves
> <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> said:
>
>
> I don't think the yama of ahimsa means to sit back passively if someone
> challenges your beliefs.
Yes it does. Let others keep their own beliefs if they don't like yours.
> I agree that it is best to be cordial but
> part of the fun and profit of this newsgroup is to discuss our
> differences as well as our common love of yoga.
>
> Though the rhetoric does get heated, all parties in this discussion
> have been respectful of each other. This heat is a good thing. Of
> course if we were all sitting at a table at a café I doubt we would
> fall so easily into AD Hominun attacks, but somehow the nature of posts
> moves this way. Gotta take these posts with a grain of salt. We all
> know the parties involved, everyone has good intentions and good hearts.
>
> An important aspect to the yogic path is bringing passion to the
> practice. This niyama is called tapas.
Aye, but the practice doesn't consist of bickering about God.
S.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2006-07-24, 4:27 pm |
| Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> Stu wrote:
>
>
> Yes it does. Let others keep their own beliefs if they don't like yours.
>
>
> Aye, but the practice doesn't consist of bickering about God.
>
> S.
Oops! I just noticed that I was not heeding my own advice here. Good
advice is notoriously hard to follow, but I might need to think this
over a bit, to let my walk adapt itself to my talk, or the other way
around.
S.
| |
|
| On 2006-07-24 12:57:44 -0700, Sevenhundred Elves
<sevenhundred@elves.invalid> said:
> Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
>
> Oops! I just noticed that I was not heeding my own advice here. Good
> advice is notoriously hard to follow, but I might need to think this
> over a bit, to let my walk adapt itself to my talk, or the other way
> around.
>
> S.
There is a famous and powerful story about ahimsa told in the Vedas,
the vast collection of ancient philosophical teachings from India. The
story is about a sadhu, a wandering monk who would make a yearly
circuit to a number of villages in order to teach. One day as he
entered a village, he saw a large and menacing snake. The snake was
terrorizing the villagers and making their life difficult. The sadhu
spoke to the snake and taught him about ahimsa; it was a lesson that
the snake heard and took to heart. The following year when the sadhu
made his annual visit to the village, he again saw the snake. How
changed he was. Now this once magnificent snake was skinny and bruised.
The sadhu asked the snake what had happened to cause such a change in
his appearance. The snake replied that he had taken the teaching of
ahimsa to heart and had realized the error of his ways. Thus he had
stopped terrorizing the village. Because he was no longer menacing, the
children now threw rocks at him and
taunted him. He could hardly hunt and was afraid of leaving his hiding
place. The sadhu shook his head wisely and said that while he had
indeed taught the importance and power of practicing ahimsa, he had
never told the snake not to hiss.
http://www.judithlasater.com/writings/no4.html
--
~Stu
| |
| omjaroo 2006-07-26, 8:26 am |
| As I understand Gandhi's take: that ahimsa (non-violence) presupposes
the willingness and the ability to do violence and the choice not to.
>From "Gandhi on Non-Violence". A selection of the writings of Mahatma
Gandhi, edited and with an introduction by Thomas Merton. (1964)
Non-violence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue
of the brave... Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence...
Non-violence presupposes ability to strike...
[Injustice must be resisted.] No doubt the non-violent way is always
the best, but where that doesn't come naturally the violent way is both
necessary and honorable,. Inaction here is rank cowardice and unmanly.
It must be shunned at all cost.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, then to
put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any
day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become
non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent.
Ahimsa calls for the strength and courage to suffer without
retaliation, to receive blows without returning any. But that does not
exhaust its meaning. silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands
speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.
And a two important statements for me personally:
I claim to be a passionate seeker after truth, which is but another
name for God. In the course of that search the discovery of
non-violence came to me. Its spread is my life mission. I have no
interest in living except for the prosecution of that mission.
No man has ever been able to describe God fully. The same is true of
ahimsa.
Jared
o
^
Stu wrote:
> On 2006-07-24 12:57:44 -0700, Sevenhundred Elves
> <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> said:
>
rd[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
hten[vbcol=seagreen]
ne[vbcol=seagreen]
s=2E[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
ve[vbcol=seagreen]
ts[vbcol=seagreen]
ts.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> There is a famous and powerful story about ahimsa told in the Vedas,
> the vast collection of ancient philosophical teachings from India. The
> story is about a sadhu, a wandering monk who would make a yearly
> circuit to a number of villages in order to teach. One day as he
> entered a village, he saw a large and menacing snake. The snake was
> terrorizing the villagers and making their life difficult. The sadhu
> spoke to the snake and taught him about ahimsa; it was a lesson that
> the snake heard and took to heart. The following year when the sadhu
> made his annual visit to the village, he again saw the snake. How
> changed he was. Now this once magnificent snake was skinny and bruised.
> The sadhu asked the snake what had happened to cause such a change in
> his appearance. The snake replied that he had taken the teaching of
> ahimsa to heart and had realized the error of his ways. Thus he had
> stopped terrorizing the village. Because he was no longer menacing, the
> children now threw rocks at him and
> taunted him. He could hardly hunt and was afraid of leaving his hiding
> place. The sadhu shook his head wisely and said that while he had
> indeed taught the importance and power of practicing ahimsa, he had
> never told the snake not to hiss.
>=20
> http://www.judithlasater.com/writings/no4.html
> --=20
> ~Stu
| |
|
|
>"omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1153906979.580945.60510@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>As I understand Gandhi's take: that ahimsa (non-violence) presupposes
>the willingness and the ability to do violence and the choice not to.
gandhi's non-violence should not be confused with yoga non-violence.
gandhi was a politician and his vision was pacifist and inherently
political. he deliberately dabbled in yogic terms to emotionally manipulate
the illiterate hindu population. unfortunately it made the muslims
suspicious and led to unintended consequences. to call him a "mahatma" is
stretching it. the buddha has been called "mahatma". to put him on the same
pedestal as the buddha is ridiculous.
yoga non-violence is not incompatible with "violence". ahimsa in yoga refers
to the attitude of goodwill to all.
|
| |
|
|