|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 22, 2019 11:37:15 GMT -5
What is the connection, if any, between the sages, non-duality, and politics?
The Bhagavad Gita, is, of course, a quintessentially political document. Krishna uses non-duality to argue that Arjuna should fight a just war. This was not the only stance one could take, even in the Mahabharata. Vidura, another character in the Mahabharata and the literal earthly embodiment of duty, chooses to sit it out.
Jesus spoke of the 'kingdom of God,' a place where the rich would be deposed, the poor fed, and war abolished. These are spiritual-political aims, arguably. He kicked the money-changers out of the temple. At the same time, when asked by his enemies whether he was telling people not to pay taxes, he held up a coin and asked whose inscription was on it. It was Caesar's. Well, he said, give unto Caesar's what is Caesar's. A very coy reply.
Ramana Maharshi said little about politics, and often encouraged people to look more deeply into the Self before trying to change the world. He was certainly an admirer of Gandhi, he refused to explicitly condemn (though neither did he support) caste distinctions, and had this to say about World War 2:
"There will be what will be called a 'war,' but which, in reality, will be a great world revolution. Every country and every person will be touched by it."
Lao-Tse in the Tao te Ching suggests that the best government is one that keeps the people uneducated and docile, so that they don't have lots of desires. And he liked the idea of a subtle ruler who attempts very little. A very, very light hand on the wheel.
The Buddha created a kind of early version of a commune in his sanghas: shared property, democratic decision-making, and so on.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 22, 2019 21:17:43 GMT -5
"Render unto Ceaser, what is Caeser's". Where there are people peeps, there will be laws. In contrast, while we might be able to make certain positive idealizations about SRSuperPeeps TM, the predictions as to their behaviors suffer the same limitations as the systems of morals and ethics that underlie the laws. Oh, and clearly, our great president, Donald Trump, is obviously, at the highest level of embodiment of the enlightened state currently possible given the current astrological cycles.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 22, 2019 21:33:36 GMT -5
"Render unto Ceaser, what is Caeser's". A clever tautology if ever there were one And yet so many of the SRSuperPeeps DO talk about morals and ethics... we could of course keep it simple and say all that is totally irrelevant except inasmuch as it brings peace of mind so that seekers can seek better. But the other side of the coin is to explore the possibility that there is some connection on the other side of paradise. I'm not quite sure if that works or makes sense... but it's fun to think out loud. Clearly. And that makes this the BEST astrological cycle. No one's ever SEEN astrological cycles like this one. And I can imagine what he does when the virgin, I mean, Virgo, is in his House. He just kisses, he doesn't even wait. He grabs her by the... When you're a star they let you do anything.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 23, 2019 8:37:43 GMT -5
What is the connection, if any, between the sages, non-duality, and politics? The Bhagavad Gita, is, of course, a quintessentially political document. Krishna uses non-duality to argue that Arjuna should fight a just war. This was not the only stance one could take, even in the Mahabharata. Vidura, another character in the Mahabharata and the literal earthly embodiment of duty, chooses to sit it out. Jesus spoke of the ' kingdom of God,' a place where the rich would be deposed, the poor fed, and war abolished. These are spiritual-political aims, arguably. He kicked the money-changers out of the temple. At the same time, when asked by his enemies whether he was telling people not to pay taxes, he held up a coin and asked whose inscription was on it. It was Caesar's. Well, he said, give unto Caesar's what is Caesar's. A very coy reply. Ramana Maharshi said little about politics, and often encouraged people to look more deeply into the Self before trying to change the world. He was certainly an admirer of Gandhi, he refused to explicitly condemn (though neither did he support) caste distinctions, and had this to say about World War 2: "There will be what will be called a 'war,' but which, in reality, will be a great world revolution. Every country and every person will be touched by it." Lao-Tse in the Tao te Ching suggests that the best government is one that keeps the people uneducated and docile, so that they don't have lots of desires. And he liked the idea of a subtle ruler who attempts very little. A very, very light hand on the wheel. The Buddha created a kind of early version of a commune in his sanghas: shared property, democratic decision-making, and so on. Thoughts? I personally know a lot of sages, and they rarely talk about politics at satsangs except in the most general, almost impersonal, sense. This is probably because their main focus is directed toward waking peeps up from the concensus paradigm. Talking to them one on one, however, is a different story, and their general outlook is similar to that of Jesus and the other best known sages from world history--help the poor and needy, be of service, treat others as one would want to be treated, support causes that benefit those who are suffering, etc. Some are more socially active than others, and particular teachers (Gangaji comes to mind) have prison outreach programs, homeless programs, and foundations that further what we generally think of as "social justice" programs. Byron Katie uses political questions in public as a way of encouraging people to look deeper into themselves. People who express animosity toward a politician or a political party, for example, are asked to question whether their thoughts about the issue are true, and to consider the implications of reversing their statements. All of the sages I've met live more in line with New testament-type teachings (mercy, love, forgiveness, acceptance, humility, service, etc) than Old-Testament-type teachings (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, judgementalness, harshness, etc).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2019 14:29:10 GMT -5
"Render unto Ceaser, what is Caeser's". A clever tautology if ever there were one And yet so many of the SRSuperPeeps DO talk about morals and ethics... we could of course keep it simple and say all that is totally irrelevant except inasmuch as it brings peace of mind so that seekers can seek better. But the other side of the coin is to explore the possibility that there is some connection on the other side of paradise. I'm not quite sure if that works or makes sense... but it's fun to think out loud. Clearly. And that makes this the BEST astrological cycle. No one's ever SEEN astrological cycles like this one. And I can imagine what he does when the virgin, I mean, Virgo, is in his House. He just kisses, he doesn't even wait. He grabs her by the... When you're a star they let you do anything. The only "enlightened sage" I've read or listened to who ever mentioned the topic of virtue (that I noticed) was Niz, but his underlying context is so transcendent, and his message about personal attachments so very clear, that there's no ambiguity there. I just tune-out from anyone purporting to offer leadership on the topic of existential truth if they veer off into talking about making the world a better place: and that includes Tolle. The way I see it, "enlightened politics" presents the same oxymoron as "enlightened person". Realization doesn't make the world stop its act of perpetual self-consumption, and politics is never not about power, influence, control, and thereby, ultimately, violence. I was an unltra-cynic on the topic 20 years ago, and not much has changed since then, other than I can actually feel compassion even for the most outrageous personalities on that stage, even as they vomit out their inner-darkness all over it, including Trump. While what I'm writing here can be heard as a screed, I don't hold the sins of political peeps against them in any angry sense, nor so the peeps who pull strings attached to the politicians: "hate the sin, love the sinner". The American political system has never not been a sham designed to keep the people distracted and easily controlled. Any real differences between the two parties are ultimately exploited by the powerful interests that fund both of them. The truism that applies is: "you can always hire one half of the poor, to kill the other half". This plays out on a scale that is quite intricate and complex, and ultimately manifests as an ever increasing vice on what used to be the middle-class. I forget who wrote that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of patriots", but that one applies as well -- because the reason it hasn't happened (and for that, I'm actually rather personally grateful), is that the American nation has been a victim of it's own success. As long as the gold keeps flowing, it can continually finance the postponement of any reckoning. Here, here's about as an "enlightened" take on American politics as ever has been, albeit skewed toward one end of the imaginary ideological spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 23, 2019 15:19:27 GMT -5
The only "enlightened sage" I've read or listened to who ever mentioned the topic of virtue (that I noticed) was Niz, but his underlying context is so transcendent, and his message about personal attachments so very clear, that there's no ambiguity there. I just tune-out from anyone purporting to offer leadership on the topic of existential truth if they veer off into talking about making the world a better place: and that includes Tolle. Understandable. I wish I could be that generous That's Jefferson. Carlin is brilliant, because it feels true, but is it really so completely true? Seems like there has been palpable progress on so many issues over the last century even in America. Agreed that the "American dream" has is very far from delivering on its promise, but the position of total cynicism seems simply incorrect. When there have been vices on the middle class before, they have been (at least partly) loosened through things like the New Deal, the GI bill, Medicare, and on and on. More generally, what about someone like Gandhi? He's an interesting case of the enlightened statesman...
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 23, 2019 19:19:37 GMT -5
A clever tautology if ever there were one And yet so many of the SRSuperPeeps DO talk about morals and ethics... we could of course keep it simple and say all that is totally irrelevant except inasmuch as it brings peace of mind so that seekers can seek better. But the other side of the coin is to explore the possibility that there is some connection on the other side of paradise. I'm not quite sure if that works or makes sense... but it's fun to think out loud. Clearly. And that makes this the BEST astrological cycle. No one's ever SEEN astrological cycles like this one. And I can imagine what he does when the virgin, I mean, Virgo, is in his House. He just kisses, he doesn't even wait. He grabs her by the... When you're a star they let you do anything. The only "enlightened sage" I've read or listened to who ever mentioned the topic of virtue (that I noticed) was Niz, but his underlying context is so transcendent, and his message about personal attachments so very clear, that there's no ambiguity there. I just tune-out from anyone purporting to offer leadership on the topic of existential truth if they veer off into talking about making the world a better place: and that includes Tolle. The way I see it, "enlightened politics" presents the same oxymoron as "enlightened person". Realization doesn't make the world stop its act of perpetual self-consumption, and politics is never not about power, influence, control, and thereby, ultimately, violence. I was an unltra-cynic on the topic 20 years ago, and not much has changed since then, other than I can actually feel compassion even for the most outrageous personalities on that stage, even as they vomit out their inner-darkness all over it, including Trump. While what I'm writing here can be heard as a screed, I don't hold the sins of political peeps against them in any angry sense, nor so the peeps who pull strings attached to the politicians: "hate the sin, love the sinner". The American political system has never not been a sham designed to keep the people distracted and easily controlled. Any real differences between the two parties are ultimately exploited by the powerful interests that fund both of them. The truism that applies is: "you can always hire one half of the poor, to kill the other half". This plays out on a scale that is quite intricate and complex, and ultimately manifests as an ever increasing vice on what used to be the middle-class. I forget who wrote that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of patriots", but that one applies as well -- because the reason it hasn't happened (and for that, I'm actually rather personally grateful), is that the American nation has been a victim of it's own success. As long as the gold keeps flowing, it can continually finance the postponement of any reckoning. Here, here's about as an "enlightened" take on American politics as ever has been, albeit skewed toward one end of the imaginary ideological spectrum. Some of the best rants ever! I still remember doing the "Al Sleet, the Hippy Dippy Weatherman" (on WWWWWIIIIINNNNNOOOO, Wonderful WINO Radio) routine as my solo act in the 5th grade at my Episcopalian elementary school. The whole class had no idea wtf I was doing (neither did I) and were just staring and looking at each other like, "WTF is this guy on about", giving me the heebeejeebees. But my art/music teacher was on the floor laughing uncontrollably, which pretty much egged me on to complete the act in pretty decent style. She gave me a hug afterwards and laughingly told me I had made her day. I never really understood that event until years and years later I found out she had been fired from her position after they found out she had been drinking booze and smoking MJ with the high school kids. Mind you, she was literally the head preacher's daughter. Life's pretty funny sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 23, 2019 19:40:48 GMT -5
The only "enlightened sage" I've read or listened to who ever mentioned the topic of virtue (that I noticed) was Niz, but his underlying context is so transcendent, and his message about personal attachments so very clear, that there's no ambiguity there. I just tune-out from anyone purporting to offer leadership on the topic of existential truth if they veer off into talking about making the world a better place: and that includes Tolle. Understandable. I wish I could be that generous That's Jefferson. Carlin is brilliant, because it feels true, but is it really so completely true? Seems like there has been palpable progress on so many issues over the last century even in America. Agreed that the "American dream" has is very far from delivering on its promise, but the position of total cynicism seems simply incorrect. When there have been vices on the middle class before, they have been (at least partly) loosened through things like the New Deal, the GI bill, Medicare, and on and on. More generally, what about someone like Gandhi? He's an interesting case of the enlightened statesman... It's hard to say where the likes of a non-dual sage would fit into the modern day political scene. It seems that history would have to present itself in a very unique way and to a very uniquely conditioned individual, much like how the story of Gandhi unfolded. In a place like the United States, where it is hard enough to just be human and not be shredded by the opposing party's extremist pundits and political strategists, I can't imagine someone with such a balanced take on life getting on the ticket, much less winning. As for the cynicism Carlin presents, it helped to make an impression, to be sure. He was a performer who swayed the direction society was flowing. He did his homework, pulled no punches with hardly anyone, and stood his ground with his take on things. Chomsky is quite similar in that regard, though obviously is quite a different act. Having said that, sure, there is a lot more upward mobility and/or political freedom available in the US than in quite a few other countries. But, to understand Carlin rantology, you gotta step into his shoes and see what he grew up in and see what he was exposed to...and then take it all with a grain of satirical salt.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2019 21:33:28 GMT -5
The only "enlightened sage" I've read or listened to who ever mentioned the topic of virtue (that I noticed) was Niz, but his underlying context is so transcendent, and his message about personal attachments so very clear, that there's no ambiguity there. I just tune-out from anyone purporting to offer leadership on the topic of existential truth if they veer off into talking about making the world a better place: and that includes Tolle. Understandable. I wish I could be that generous That's Jefferson. Carlin is brilliant, because it feels true, but is it really so completely true? Seems like there has been palpable progress on so many issues over the last century even in America. Agreed that the "American dream" has is very far from delivering on its promise, but the position of total cynicism seems simply incorrect. When there have been vices on the middle class before, they have been (at least partly) loosened through things like the New Deal, the GI bill, Medicare, and on and on. More generally, what about someone like Gandhi? He's an interesting case of the enlightened statesman... I know very little on the details about Ghandi. He wasn't in our textbooks, but I remember at least one teacher talking about him, and of course, he's hard to miss from a common-knowledge perspective: I guess the story goes that he led a successful, but non-violent ouster of the British. As far as the limits of Carlin's rant, I did allude to the allowance for that. In general, and to (very greatly) simplify, the complaints about corporate excess take for granted the abundance that the American economy generates. If you dig a layer deeper, what can become clear, is that the truer a relative truth gets, like say, that there is a squeeze on the American middle class, the truer the flip side becomes. Inevitably, life involves a process of acquiring the energy to live it, and this is neither good nor bad, neither virtuous nor sinful. It just, is. And while I could expound on the nuances of greater cycles of cultural growth, peaks, and inevitable decline, and especially offer several paragraphs as to how culture is dynamic, and in this sense, entirely anathema to the ultimate effectiveness of law and policy, I'll instead elect to save your eyes the strain. So, it's arguably a just outcome that the British were forced to leave India to it's own devices, and we can blame the horrific chaos that ensued from the division of the subcontinent on the depths of their psychotically inane and childish incompetence at the art of exploiting conquered peoples (see, as a supporting example, the potato famine). But still, it's also arguable that had either the British remained (thru to the transition of something like Canada or Australia), or had a less-enlightened leader forced the exit, the subcontinent might not be the nuclear powder-keg on a hair trigger that it is today. See, this is the thing about politics: the fact of unintended consequences means that it ultimately doesn't matter how enlightened your leader is, and the thing about the appearance of violence is that it is entirely inevitable, across all walks and at all levels of life, not just in the cultural aggregate.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2019 21:38:43 GMT -5
Understandable. I wish I could be that generous That's Jefferson. Carlin is brilliant, because it feels true, but is it really so completely true? Seems like there has been palpable progress on so many issues over the last century even in America. Agreed that the "American dream" has is very far from delivering on its promise, but the position of total cynicism seems simply incorrect. When there have been vices on the middle class before, they have been (at least partly) loosened through things like the New Deal, the GI bill, Medicare, and on and on. More generally, what about someone like Gandhi? He's an interesting case of the enlightened statesman... It's hard to say where the likes of a non-dual sage would fit into the modern day political scene. It seems that history would have to present itself in a very unique way and to a very uniquely conditioned individual, much like how the story of Gandhi unfolded. In a place like the United States, where it is hard enough to just be human and not be shredded by the opposing party's extremist pundits and political strategists, I can't imagine someone with such a balanced take on life getting on the ticket, much less winning. As for the cynicism Carlin presents, it helped to make an impression, to be sure. He was a performer who swayed the direction society was flowing. He did his homework, pulled no punches with hardly anyone, and stood his ground with his take on things. Chomsky is quite similar in that regard, though obviously is quite a different act. Having said that, sure, there is a lot more upward mobility and/or political freedom available in the US than in quite a few other countries. But, to understand Carlin rantology, you gotta step into his shoes and see what he grew up in and see what he was exposed to...and then take it all with a grain of satirical salt. I recall hearing recently told that American upward mobility is a mythical thing of the past, based on a comparison with, of all places, the U.K.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 23, 2019 21:54:04 GMT -5
It's hard to say where the likes of a non-dual sage would fit into the modern day political scene. It seems that history would have to present itself in a very unique way and to a very uniquely conditioned individual, much like how the story of Gandhi unfolded. In a place like the United States, where it is hard enough to just be human and not be shredded by the opposing party's extremist pundits and political strategists, I can't imagine someone with such a balanced take on life getting on the ticket, much less winning. Reminds me of Socrates saying that he wouldn't enter politics because he couldn't be sufficiently dishonest. Definitely
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 23, 2019 22:03:58 GMT -5
Understandable. I wish I could be that generous That's Jefferson. Carlin is brilliant, because it feels true, but is it really so completely true? Seems like there has been palpable progress on so many issues over the last century even in America. Agreed that the "American dream" has is very far from delivering on its promise, but the position of total cynicism seems simply incorrect. When there have been vices on the middle class before, they have been (at least partly) loosened through things like the New Deal, the GI bill, Medicare, and on and on. More generally, what about someone like Gandhi? He's an interesting case of the enlightened statesman... I know very little on the details about Ghandi. He wasn't in our textbooks, but I remember at least one teacher talking about him, and of course, he's hard to miss from a common-knowledge perspective: I guess the story goes that he led a successful, but non-violent ouster of the British. As far as the limits of Carlin's rant, I did allude to the allowance for that. In general, and to (very greatly) simplify, the complaints about corporate excess take for granted the abundance that the American economy generates. If you dig a layer deeper, what can become clear, is that the truer a relative truth gets, like say, that there is a squeeze on the American middle class, the truer the flip side becomes. Inevitably, life involves a process of acquiring the energy to live it, and this is neither good nor bad, neither virtuous nor sinful. It just, is. And while I could expound on the nuances of greater cycles of cultural growth, peaks, and inevitable decline, and especially offer several paragraphs as to how culture is dynamic, and in this sense, entirely anathema to the ultimate effectiveness of law and policy, I'll instead elect to save your eyes the strain. Wait, now I want to hear laughter's theory of culture, society, law, and politics! Well, I'm not really that familiar with the history, but my impression is that the British were quite happy to see, if not the chaos of partition, then at least the divided situation we have today. They didn't want a single, strong, united country. True, perfection is unattainable, but simply obtaining the good that can be gotten is no mean feat. It's the same with parenting. Children are inherently different and there are tons of unintended consequences, but the difference between a good parent and a bad parent is still often colossal.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2019 0:48:19 GMT -5
Wait, now I want to hear laughter's theory of culture, society, law, and politics! For some reason, I don't believe you.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 24, 2019 5:52:47 GMT -5
Having said that, sure, there is a lot more upward mobility and/or political freedom available in the US than in quite a few other countries. Unfortunately, there's no longer much upward mobility. The last report I saw had the USA ranked about 15th in that category, 25th in infrastructure, and 20th in math (we used to be first). Seven million peeps are more than 3 months behind in their car payments, student loan debt is now more than a trillion, 40% of the country would have to borrow money for a $400 emergency, and 78% of peeps report living paycheck to paycheck. Wages for the bottom 80% have been stagnant for 40 years. 657 water mains break every day. 40,000 bridges need repair, air traffic control ranks 25th.......oh well, at least we still have political freedom.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 24, 2019 11:24:49 GMT -5
Wait, now I want to hear laughter's theory of culture, society, law, and politics! For some reason, I don't believe you. Is this like one of those Zen temple anecdotes where the acolyte has to ask over and over for admission, and is refused over and over, until he decides to wait outside in the pouring rain and scorching sun and the freezing cold, to prove his ardent desire for truth, and finally the gates to wisdom are opened?
|
|