|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 5, 2019 22:03:52 GMT -5
Just musing on two classes of seekers... one group seeking truth, and the other seeking happiness/peace/the end of suffering.
Somewhat parallels the approaches of Vedanta and Buddhism. They both have components of both truth and happiness, but Vedanta tends to focus more on truth and Buddhism more on happiness in their overall milieus.
If I'm going to stereotype, the seekers of 'truth' are more frequently (but certainly not entirely) men, argumentative, 'macho' in their 'no-BS' approach, and are more drawn to hard-bitten, tough, monastic atmospheres. They're more likely to respect hierarchy and achievement, and spirituality is more like conquering Mt. Everest. The 'technique' is likely some variety of investigation.
And again with the stereotyping, the seekers of 'happiness' are more frequently (but certainly not entirely) women, soothing, 'accepting' in their 'anything goes' unity-harmony approach, and are more drawn to emotional New Age teachings and retreats, and spirituality is more like this melting, swaying non-judgmental connection. The 'technique' is likely some variety of surrender.
I wonder what it all means...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 6, 2019 3:51:54 GMT -5
I think it's a fair stereotype, definitely accords to my general experience. I see Truth/Love as two sides of the same coin, but 'Truth' speaks to the masculine, and 'Love' speaks to the 'feminine'. I even speak of 'God' as 2 sides, the Divine Feminine is the 'womb of creation', the infinite potential, the absolute acceptance. Whereas Divine Masculine is the Conscious Presence. Together, they are 'God'. Practically speaking, this also manifests as different ego. So the male ego is brittle, sensitive, but therefore also more aggressive. So men are drawn to power positions more than women, they overly compete, create war and generally f*ck up the world . On the flip side, the female ego confuses Love with passion and romance, can be highly manipulative, and there can be a higher volatility.
Of course, this is totally politically incorrect, and it IS a generalization. I see both spiritual paths as valid, though I believe that ultimately, we have to balance Truth and Love. In doing so, we become healthy men and healthy women.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Apr 6, 2019 6:05:50 GMT -5
Yer seems a little bit of both in my eyes also, I mean you won't have a peep at peace and not know who they are, it's more ignorance is bliss lol.
For myself I wanted the end of suffering . This can't be approached without knowing who or what you are at the core so to speak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 14:03:27 GMT -5
It seems true, except my experience in the Zen world found it to be male dominated and heiarchical. But Zen IMHO is a strange duck and is heavily influenced by Taoism. Thomas Merton thought Zen could be incorporated into Catholicism seamlessly, at least the Soto version.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 6, 2019 15:28:49 GMT -5
Just musing on two classes of seekers... one group seeking truth, and the other seeking happiness/peace/the end of suffering. Somewhat parallels the approaches of Vedanta and Buddhism. They both have components of both truth and happiness, but Vedanta tends to focus more on truth and Buddhism more on happiness in their overall milieus. If I'm going to stereotype, the seekers of 'truth' are more frequently (but certainly not entirely) men, argumentative, 'macho' in their 'no-BS' approach, and are more drawn to hard-bitten, tough, monastic atmospheres. They're more likely to respect hierarchy and achievement, and spirituality is more like conquering Mt. Everest. The 'technique' is likely some variety of investigation. And again with the stereotyping, the seekers of 'happiness' are more frequently (but certainly not entirely) women, soothing, 'accepting' in their 'anything goes' unity-harmony approach, and are more drawn to emotional New Age teachings and retreats, and spirituality is more like this melting, swaying non-judgmental connection. The 'technique' is likely some variety of surrender. I wonder what it all means... And then there's those openly seeking meaning generally or even, authority, which would describe the attraction to Christianity, or to studying philosophy, for instance. There's also those directly seeking transcendent experience, and it seems to me the vast majority of human beings are seeking various experiences, with any pull toward transcendence being unconscious. But I'd say that pull is never not there, to one degree or another. The direct, conscious seeking of truth would seem a possible natural progression of intellectual curiosity, but I can imagine, and seem to be able to vaguely recollect more than one tale of people turning in that direction after the other paths had seemed to fail them. Also, people who describe a primary path of curiosity, seem to be a minority -- and really, I don't think there's any path that can't be discerned to consist of multiple driving and catalytic factors. Perhaps the ubiquity of tales of suffering and woe are the squeaky wheel getting the grease, as everyone can relate to suffering to one degree or another, but not everyone is necessarily all that curious, in any sort of sustained fashion, over time. A person directly and consciously seeking peace, while still harboring the existential contradiction, might be, if not likely so, to be led, eventually, to the opposite of peace, and that's a pattern that seems to reflect those stories of people who've turned away from seeking peace, to seeking the truth.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 7, 2019 2:07:19 GMT -5
Yer seems a little bit of both in my eyes also, I mean you won't have a peep at peace and not know who they are, it's more ignorance is bliss lol. For myself I wanted the end of suffering . This can't be approached without knowing who or what you are at the core so to speak. Yes, in the end they definitely connect to each other.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 7, 2019 2:08:22 GMT -5
I think it's a fair stereotype, definitely accords to my general experience. I see Truth/Love as two sides of the same coin, but 'Truth' speaks to the masculine, and 'Love' speaks to the 'feminine'. I even speak of 'God' as 2 sides, the Divine Feminine is the 'womb of creation', the infinite potential, the absolute acceptance. Whereas Divine Masculine is the Conscious Presence. Together, they are 'God'. Practically speaking, this also manifests as different ego. So the male ego is brittle, sensitive, but therefore also more aggressive. So men are drawn to power positions more than women, they overly compete, create war and generally f*ck up the world . On the flip side, the female ego confuses Love with passion and romance, can be highly manipulative, and there can be a higher volatility. Of course, this is totally politically incorrect, and it IS a generalization. I see both spiritual paths as valid, though I believe that ultimately, we have to balance Truth and Love. In doing so, we become healthy men and healthy women. And overall it seems in the spiritual field that the 'feminine' is ascendant, no? That's what you hear about everywhere with the New Age movement generally, it seems... that ethos.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 7, 2019 2:10:30 GMT -5
And then there's those openly seeking meaning generally or even, authority, which would describe the attraction to Christianity, or to studying philosophy, for instance. There's also those directly seeking transcendent experience, and it seems to me the vast majority of human beings are seeking various experiences, with any pull toward transcendence being unconscious. But I'd say that pull is never not there, to one degree or another. The direct, conscious seeking of truth would seem a possible natural progression of intellectual curiosity, but I can imagine, and seem to be able to vaguely recollect more than one tale of people turning in that direction after the other paths had seemed to fail them. Also, people who describe a primary path of curiosity, seem to be a minority -- and really, I don't think there's any path that can't be discerned to consist of multiple driving and catalytic factors. Perhaps the ubiquity of tales of suffering and woe are the squeaky wheel getting the grease, as everyone can relate to suffering to one degree or another, but not everyone is necessarily all that curious, in any sort of sustained fashion, over time. A person directly and consciously seeking peace, while still harboring the existential contradiction, might be, if not likely so, to be led, eventually, to the opposite of peace, and that's a pattern that seems to reflect those stories of people who've turned away from seeking peace, to seeking the truth. Yes, because suffering leads to the question of the meaning of suffering, which becomes ultimately more important than simply and blindly putting a stop to the suffering...
|
|