|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 14:24:49 GMT -5
Western society is built upon the assumption of original sin. Augustine's concept of original sin in not based on scripture. Children should be treasured. Instead there is an unconscious bias that children are tainted with sin, even from their birth. Shame is the source of a great deal of suffering, shame from the parent or caregiver not accepting the child just they way they are. Most of it is subconscious processing, but it's there. Shame comes from not accepting the child, trying to *~*correct*~* a child which does not need correcting, just loved and accepted. I didn't know where my self-hate came from. I explored to move past it. I found a route to separate from it. In the process, years, I think I came closer to the why. It's basically in the western collective unconscious. (IMO) Western society? What the hell is that? Do you mean all white people? Words have meanings. If you want me to engage you in a serious inquiry, you need to stop speaking like a politician pushing false narratives. There were many great thinkers among white people whose philosophies have fundamental impacts on western cultural mores. Even our cowboy culture of America was inspired by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Emerson, Locke, William James. Judging from their contributions to the writing of the US Constitution, there was hardly anyone among them who seemed burdened by original sin.
I would like to see your argument.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 14:26:48 GMT -5
The self is a natural phenomenon of Consciousness. Is Consciousness intrinsically evil? The self is the observer, the center of the state of awareness. It's sole, basic function is to tend to the living body.
The source of evil is the boatman, the nutjob who is preoccupied with a demented form of spirituality. And what is the source of the batman? Was it a DC comics creation? Boatman. It is concept of you as depicted in a Chuangtze story.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 14:27:30 GMT -5
Original sin, in a conventional Christian context, is simply straying from God's will. In a broader, nondual context, it means the existential illusion, which can only be lifted by grace, as "knowledge of good and evil" points to the exact same notion as "ignorance of true nature". Grace doesn't leave an embryo, but there is clarity in the absence left by her wake. You need to brush up on your Calvin and your Augustine. All of Protestantism and the Catholic Church has as its basis that a newborn baby is born in sin. So in a western Christian family, a baby is seen as a person who is lost and separated from God, and this will be forever unless the child or young person or adult gets ~saved~. Now, the route to this is different for different denominations and is different in the Catholic Church. You are very familiar with the route of the Catholic Church, I am not. But to treat a child as if it is separated from God and a sinner from day one, and needs to be guided to the truth, that's what is monstrous. That's the definition of original sin. Look at Calvin for Protestantism. Look at Augustine for the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church barely tolerates Augustine. And that's what our whole society is built on. Monstrous. Now you see why atheists think Christians are weird. And sree, from earlier, a few weeks ago, you asked me why I was against the church, that's why. Original sin is not just straying from God's will. From a western Christian's perspective, it means everything you do is based on wrongness, unless and until you get saved. All this is where the shame you wrote about comes from. Children are brought up in shame, monstrous. Now, the teachings of Jesus and he himself, almost nothing to do with the western church. Ok, so now we're deep into TMT but I bear responsibility for offering you those interpretations of the pointing. You and a bunch of other past philosophers - some I'm sure far smarter and more learned that I am - you've focused on this question "is a new born baby a sinner"? It's overthinking things. It's the mind going mad with the butcher blade, chopping the world up into these little pieces in an effort that is vain in both senses of the word. The clear, commonsense answer is that no, of course a baby isn't a sinner. That's why we refer to babies and even younger toddlers as "innocents". I'm quite content to stop there. I've got no need to philosophize about Church doctrine. Not interested. But, on the other hand - and I'm only writing this to demonstrate what is underlying this particular Sisyphean endless mind spin - I can understand why the philosophers attempted to reconcile "original sin" and "innocence", and the material reconciliation in this instance is quite clear. The baby's life has a relative causal context. Leave it out in a field in a basket and it will get eaten by wolves. It's not the individual form of the newborn that is a sinner, it is humanity, as a whole, that will inevitably imprint the newborn with the cultural knowledge of good and evil. So the argument would go that you cannot separate the innocence of the newborn from humanities original sin. The endless mind spin here is the question "why would God allow evil?". A typical Christian without the time, and perhaps without the intellectual and/or emotional capacity to benefit from the philosophy is probably far better off never being exposed to that philosophy as it will only confuse them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 14:31:19 GMT -5
Exactly! Spirituality is about human life in the real world. The ancient Chinese philosophers were focused on right human conduct and condemned wrong behavior. Spirituality is about order and harmony in daily life. Ethics are consistent with no distinction between private and public life. Western spirituality is for bots.
I explained a little in the original sin post, above, partly why the west is so f****d up. Western society is basically built upon a lie, on untruth. Reality is distorted in the west, psychological reality. Nah, philosophy is a contagion that is limited to the elites. Too much time to think.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 14:33:13 GMT -5
I woke up this morning and this was nagging at me. Just to be clear, in my post above I was speaking from my perspective. I try to say often enough, my view cannot be translated into the ND view. But of course everybody can't help but read my view from their perspective, that's what I can't help. And I try to be clear when I am speaking from my perspective. So, to be clear, I wasn't speaking about what elimination means from the ND view. This is how you read it. That was not my intention. Yes, I do sometimes say: This is what ND means etc. That wasn't here. If you read my post again, it's clear I was telling what elimination means, from my perspective. But that post had a context. I only interjected myself into the dialog here because you'd written this: You cease to identify with the cultural self society has put on you. That's a kind of death. This is what everybody means by the self is illusory. It is. But the NDist stop here. They say it's OK for the manifestations of the old self to continue, the whatever still inhabits the body (zd says the Whole) just no longer ~identifies~ with that old self. sdp says as long as there are manifestations of the old self, the journey is not over. But here it gets complicated, everybody has a little different view. So sdp pretty-much stands alone, here. Cessation of identification with the cultural self is a way of describing SR objectively. It's a true statement, but incomplete. What you went on to write about residual embyro's was misconceived imagination based on your interpretation about what people have written on the topic beyond their plain statements about it. I know clearly embryos don't belong to the ND view, only my view. If I talk about embryos, it's always about my view. Print that out and put it by your computer also. There is a lot of overlap between my view and the ND view. If it were not so I couldn't dialogue here. I accept non-volition, up to a point. I accept the imaginary self, up to a point. Either the ND view is a subset of the 4th Way or the 4th Way is a subset of the ND view, or they don't overlap at all. They do overlap. I don't know if I have ever said the ND view (that's only a manner of speaking, the ND "view" cannot be put into words, like the Tao cannot be put into words) is in error. What I have said numerous times, there is always further. People can ignore that, or not. I don't argue my view, I just present it. But I guess from now on, if I post, I need to do more colors and draw more arrows.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 14:33:25 GMT -5
And what is the source of the batman? Was it a DC comics creation? Boatman. It is concept of you as depicted in a Chuangtze story. Yeah, I was mocking the term, get it? You say the source of evil is the "self". What is the source of the "self"?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 14:36:29 GMT -5
But that post had a context. I only interjected myself into the dialog here because you'd written this: Cessation of identification with the cultural self is a way of describing SR objectively. It's a true statement, but incomplete. What you went on to write about residual embyro's was misconceived imagination based on your interpretation about what people have written on the topic beyond their plain statements about it. I know clearly embryos don't belong to the ND view, only my view. If I talk about embryos, it's always about my view. Print that out and put it by your computer also. There is a lot of overlap between my view and the ND view. If it were not so I couldn't dialogue here. I accept non-volition, up to a point. I accept the imaginary self, up to a point. Either the ND view is a subset of the 4th Way or the 4th Way is a subset of the ND view, or they don't overlap at all. They do overlap. I don't know if I have ever said the ND view (that's only a manner of speaking, the ND "view" cannot be put into words, like the Tao cannot be put into words) is in error. What I have said numerous times, there is always further. People can ignore that, or not. I don't argue my view, I just present it. But I guess from now on, if I post, I need to do more colors and draw more arrows. And this is what I mean by your strawmanning. What you describe with what you see overlap with is not what was being described, it's just your misinterpretation. SR is far more profound, and yet can be quite simply described as the cessation of identification with the cultural self. But you cannot imagine this absence, and the things you write about it belie quite clearly that you are certainly imagining it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2022 14:37:23 GMT -5
Have you ever been diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder or ASPD? sree doesn't have ASPD. He left the world by leaving the world. sdp basically left the world while in the world. Until I was about 42-45 I wasn't happy that I couldn't fit in. Almost imperceptibly, along in there, I realized I was happy not fitting in, it didn't matter. But what I don't understand, about sree, I always had compassion for people, misguided people, ordinary people. I don't understand how sree sees people basically as s**t, contaminated. This is also I'm sure what satch sees. How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 14:45:27 GMT -5
Western society is built upon the assumption of original sin. Augustine's concept of original sin in not based on scripture. Children should be treasured. Instead there is an unconscious bias that children are tainted with sin, even from their birth. Shame is the source of a great deal of suffering, shame from the parent or caregiver not accepting the child just they way they are. Most of it is subconscious processing, but it's there. Shame comes from not accepting the child, trying to *~*correct*~* a child which does not need correcting, just loved and accepted. I didn't know where my self-hate came from. I explored to move past it. I found a route to separate from it. In the process, years, I think I came closer to the why. It's basically in the western collective unconscious. (IMO) Yes, shame on Agustine.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 14:45:28 GMT -5
Why do you ask me that, absicissa? ASPD is a serious mental disorder involving irresponsible criminal behavior. Have I harmed any member here? Because I wanted to. There doesn't have to be any criminal behaviour associated with such symptoms. You certainly consider yourself to be AntiSocial. Me antisocial? I am having a ball socializing with you folks here. It's the same deal when I am out and about at the stores getting my groceries. I chat with the wine guy, the fish guy who confided in me that he plans to quit to set up a pizzeria, and even the plumber, who came to fix the diverter in the tub filler. He told me he plans to buy 10-15 acres of land in Montana, his daughter is doing her final year at Utah State U, and his son is working for a park in Montana. And my hygienist, a wonderfully gentle woman, told me stuff I can't share here because it's personal. People open up to me easily. People opened up to Charles Manson easily too. I guess this is not a good argument about being antisocial. I guess you win this round, abscissa.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 14:46:25 GMT -5
What does an act of human kindness have to do with politics? There is something very distasteful about you as a person. sree, "There is something very distasteful about you as a person". I agree with satch. .. and shame on sree, too!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2022 14:47:26 GMT -5
I don't get seasick. Is your far vision poor? If not, then the sea sickness is a matter of where you are placing your attention as you sail when the water isn't completely still. You don't get seasick? Have you ever ridden out a storm in 60 mph gale force winds churning up 20 foot swells and 6 foot waves? I don't throw up like absicissa would the moment the boat moves away from its moorings. The sumatra squalls don't show up on weather radar and sneak up on you like the devil in the Malacca Straits. Can't outrun those suckers.
Stop hiding below deck and help Najib out with the rigging and you'll be fine.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Aug 22, 2022 14:48:09 GMT -5
Boatman. It is concept of you as depicted in a Chuangtze story. Yeah, I was mocking the term, get it? You say the source of evil is the "self". What is the source of the "self"?Thought. Krishnamurti said that the self is created by thought. Do you have an argument against that?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 14:52:35 GMT -5
Western society is built upon the assumption of original sin. Augustine's concept of original sin in not based on scripture. Children should be treasured. Instead there is an unconscious bias that children are tainted with sin, even from their birth. Shame is the source of a great deal of suffering, shame from the parent or caregiver not accepting the child just they way they are. Most of it is subconscious processing, but it's there. Shame comes from not accepting the child, trying to *~*correct*~* a child which does not need correcting, just loved and accepted. I didn't know where my self-hate came from. I explored to move past it. I found a route to separate from it. In the process, years, I think I came closer to the why. It's basically in the western collective unconscious. (IMO) Western society? What the hell is that? Do you mean all white people? Words have meanings. If you want me to engage you in a serious inquiry, you need to stop speaking like a politician pushing false narratives. There were many great thinkers among white people whose philosophies have fundamental impacts on western cultural mores. Even our cowboy culture of America was inspired by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Emerson, Locke, William James. Judging from their contributions to the writing of the US Constitution, there was hardly anyone among them who seemed burdened by original sin.
I would like to see your argument.
I don't expect you to read > this<, but scroll down to the Introduction. Read the first 2 & 1/2 paragraphs. The key words are the total depravity of man, and permeates the whole world. Those exist in a very real way as Jung's collective unconscious in western society. Some men emphasize the goodness of the Bible and exercise it in their lives, even Jefferson, who cut out the parts of the NT he thought didn't belong (Jefferson was undoubtedly on the autistic spectrum, undoubtedly had Asperger's Syndrome, the political correctness people have eliminated that name, stupid). William James is an absolute genius. Most people don't know that he wrote from his own perspective, his own (hidden) experiences. Emerson was a genius, Locke was a genius. Lincoln saved the US, without him we would be 2 countries. But still, on the whole, the idea of man's depravity permeates western society. I will send you a copy of my book when it comes out.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2022 14:56:48 GMT -5
I know clearly embryos don't belong to the ND view, only my view. If I talk about embryos, it's always about my view. Print that out and put it by your computer also. There is a lot of overlap between my view and the ND view. If it were not so I couldn't dialogue here. I accept non-volition, up to a point. I accept the imaginary self, up to a point. Either the ND view is a subset of the 4th Way or the 4th Way is a subset of the ND view, or they don't overlap at all. They do overlap. I don't know if I have ever said the ND view (that's only a manner of speaking, the ND "view" cannot be put into words, like the Tao cannot be put into words) is in error. What I have said numerous times, there is always further. People can ignore that, or not. I don't argue my view, I just present it. But I guess from now on, if I post, I need to do more colors and draw more arrows. And this is what I mean by your strawmanning. What you describe with what you see overlap with is not what was being described, it's just your misinterpretation. SR is far more profound, and yet can be quite simply described as the cessation of identification with the cultural self. But you cannot imagine this absence, and the things you write about it belie quite clearly that you are certainly imagining it. I see from my POV. I can't apologize for that. I don't care to argue. laughter has not changed even a tiny bit. As far as I know, you have never claimed SR, so we are in the same boat.
|
|