Entertaining opposites, releasing attachment to positions.

TheBardWest

Occasionally, as a form of self-torture, I like to check in on the A&A forum to see what folks are talking about, debating, and to see at which group they're poking fun today.

A recent thread got me thinking: How often do we entertain the ideas of our most staunch opposition? To phrase it another way: how many skeptics, agnostics, and atheists make a practice of reading and studying the works they so vehemently oppose? Likewise, how many religious fanatics, sometime-spiritualists, and would-be-seekers spend time reading the latest scientific debunking of the power of positive thinking, faith or religion?

I find myself getting wound up in such arguments, because most of the time neither side leaves room for its opposite. The atheists think all religion and spirituality is hogwash, and all followers fools. The spiritualists think the atheists are all Cartesian quarterbacks, riding the self-righteous wave of scientific inquiry - "I think, therefore your position is wrong."

What is most frustrating to me is that the majority on both sides cannot find the value in the other position. Scientists don't see the very real value that the modern spiritual movement has brought in increasing compassion, fulfillment, and positive change in the world - instead choosing to focus on fundamentalist religion as representative of all 'woo-woo' faith. Spiritualists don't see the value in critical reasoning, scientific inquiry, or exploring the very real ways in which science can shed light on some of the more questionable and objectionable practices and beliefs to make way for something more open, truthful, and universal.

I'd love to hear how and if you have entertained opposite positions in this way. Myself - I just added the book "The End of Faith" to my library queue. :-)

Well as both an atheist and skeptic and a former believer in most things woo woo, I can confidently say that I have considered both sides.

Personally I don't find any value in spiritualism or other woo beliefs simply because there is no way to really have a "positive change in the world" or "fulfilment" when you you have to rely on something that is false.
Especially when the vast majority of woo leads to people getting scammed.

TheBardWest

Sorry, I'm not tracking you there, King Mob. I think you may be confusing my question - which is more about spirituality in general vs. religious fundamentalism. The two are not the same, and they're no more similar than medical science of early man is to medical science today.

Someone who, for example, meditates daily, and sees a positive change in their life that is tangible: improved health (with scientifically verifiable changes in blood pressure, etc.), improved clarity of thought, and a greater sense of peace in their life is relying on "something false"?

To offer another example, someone who spends time daily making affirmations and focusing on 'gratitudes' (calling out the things for which they are grateful) achieves a greater sense of contentment with their life and even feels their life moving in a positive direction - they, too, are relying on something false?

Are you suggesting that the changes those people experience aren't real? That means that you're asserting your own personal viewpoint as the only verifiable lens for truth in the world, which to me is akin to the worst type of religious fundamentalism. Even though you say you don't believe in woo-woo, you're insistence that someone else's experience isn't 'real' because it doesn't measure up to your lens of reality really speaks more to your own inflated sense of ego than anything else.

The logic of your statement even contradicts medical science, which I can only assume you would not classify as 'woo woo'. Case in point: the placebo effect is extremely valuable in science, and is widely recognized as being as effective as a whole variety of medical intervention depending on the scenario. But inferring from your statement, you're implying that the placebo effect can't be really effective, and isn't positive because it is relying on something false. It also implies that medical studies that use placebo are 'scams'.

Unless you're arguing that the placebo effect is somehow 'not false', in which case you'd have to provide a clearer definition of what constitutes true vs. false. Again - your definition here seems to be rather narrow and narcissistic rather than objective.

I think the last point speaks more to your personal viewpoint vs. actual fact. If a person feels they are getting value out of a thing, who are you to say whether or not they're getting scammed? Someone who buys a McDonald's Hamburger - scam or not? Someone who buys a sports-car - scam or not? Again - this judgment is purely subjective and certainly can't be taken for any kind of scientific fact.

Personally, I think people who use most pharmaceuticals are getting scammed. For example, I think anyone who uses statin drugs are getting scammed because there is a growing body of evidence showing that it is ineffective at actually treating high cholesterol. (http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-statins-20100809,0,7145506.story) Yet the medical industry rakes in about $26billion per year on these things. You tell me, who is getting scammed? The person spending hundreds a month on an ineffective drug treatment, or the person who buys the latest self-help book and finds some fulfillment in reading it and practicing some of its teachings?

What I'm talking about, more specifically, is what Ken Wilber describes as an 'integral' viewpoint on science and spirituality - one that is inclusive of all viewpoints, recognizes them for the value they provide on various levels, doesn't feel the need to assert its position as the sole 'right' way to exist, but rather recognizes that, based on the level of awareness and understanding of a given person, each perspective has some level of truth to it...

TheBardWest

Hooo, boy...
Write a few lines a get an essay...
Now first of all I answered your question: How do you entertain the opposite view? by stating the fact that I used to be a believer.
This will be important later.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not tracking you there, King Mob. I think you may be confusing my question - which is more about spirituality in general vs. religious fundamentalism. The two are not the same, and they're no more similar than medical science of early man is to medical science today.

I am specifically not referring to religious fundamentalism.
Never said or implied anything about it.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Someone who, for example, meditates daily, and sees a positive change in their life that is tangible: improved health (with scientifically verifiable changes in blood pressure, etc.), improved clarity of thought, and a greater sense of peace in their life is relying on "something false"?

To offer another example, someone who spends time daily making affirmations and focusing on 'gratitudes' (calling out the things for which they are grateful) achieves a greater sense of contentment with their life and even feels their life moving in a positive direction - they, too, are relying on something false?

Well one, I would ask to actually see some kind of survey or paper that these things are true.
But even assuming they are true I didn't say their experiences are false, just their explanations.
Many other activities that are specifically non-spiritual/supernatural can produce similar effects.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the changes those people experience aren't real? That means that you're asserting your own personal viewpoint as the only verifiable lens for truth in the world, which to me is akin to the worst type of religious fundamentalism. Even though you say you don't believe in woo-woo, you're insistence that someone else's experience isn't 'real' because it doesn't measure up to your lens of reality really speaks more to your own inflated sense of ego than anything else.

No I am not suggesting that the changes those people experience aren't real.

The rest of this paragraph is you making a lot of assumptions about my position and character that aren't true. Kinda ironic in your thread about "entertaining the other side."

TheBardWest wrote: »

The logic of your statement even contradicts medical science, which I can only assume you would not classify as 'woo woo'. Case in point: the placebo effect is extremely valuable in science, and is widely recognized as being as effective as a whole variety of medical intervention depending on the scenario. But inferring from your statement, you're implying that the placebo effect can't be really effective, and isn't positive because it is relying on something false. It also implies that medical studies that use placebo are 'scams'.

Unless you're arguing that the placebo effect is somehow 'not false', in which case you'd have to provide a clearer definition of what constitutes true vs. false. Again - your definition here seems to be rather narrow and narcissistic rather than objective.

The placebo effect isn't that important to medical science beyond making sure thier drugs and treatments are better than an inactive ingredient or non-treatment.

I never implied that the placebo effect wasn't a real thing. You really seem to be inferring a lot from my very few words.

The placebo effect is distinctly not supernatural or spiritual in anyway.
In fact most of the Alt med crowd are very insistent that their treatment is not the placebo effect, that is is much better than the placebo effect and relies on some sort of unknown energy or something. All in deference to the evidence.

Hence the placebo is real where as the explanations are false.

TheBardWest wrote: »

I think the last point speaks more to your personal viewpoint vs. actual fact. If a person feels they are getting value out of a thing, who are you to say whether or not they're getting scammed? Someone who buys a McDonald's Hamburger - scam or not? Someone who buys a sports-car - scam or not? Again - this judgment is purely subjective and certainly can't be taken for any kind of scientific fact.

I'm sure people get a benefit out of heroin too.

But are you arguing that if some people are getting a benefit out of something, no one should actually investigate it and in the event of trickery or false hood not educate people and tell the truth?

If people want to buy the hamburger knowing it's fatty or the sports car knowing it's going to guzzle gas or if the guy uses heroin knowing it's going to mess him up, they can go nuts.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Personally, I think people who use most pharmaceuticals are getting scammed. For example, I think anyone who uses statin drugs are getting scammed because there is a growing body of evidence showing that it is ineffective at actually treating high cholesterol. (http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-statins-20100809,0,7145506.story) Yet the medical industry rakes in about $26billion per year on these things. You tell me, who is getting scammed?

I ain't going to get side tracked by a discussion on the enormous benefits of modern medicine. So to end it quick: smallpox vaccine.

TheBardWest wrote: »

The person spending hundreds a month on an ineffective drug treatment, or the person who buys the latest self-help book and finds some fulfillment in reading it and practicing some of its teachings?

And what about the people who get sucked into the various cult like organisations that are out there?
If you have no problem using the worst cases to illustrate your point you'd have no problem with me doing the same right?

TheBardWest wrote: »

What I'm talking about, more specifically, is what Ken Wilber describes as an 'integral' viewpoint on science and spirituality - one that is inclusive of all viewpoints, recognizes them for the value they provide on various levels, doesn't feel the need to assert its position as the sole 'right' way to exist, but rather recognizes that, based on the level of awareness and understanding of a given person, each perspective has some level of truth to it...

Well considering you've been putting a lot of words into my mouth before you considered my viewpoint, this paragraph is kinda empty...

TheBardWest

King Mob - go back and re-read my original question, re-read your response, and tell me how I'm not supposed to draw the conclusion that you're making gross generalizations based on "worst cases"?

You say, "How do you entertain the opposite view? by stating the fact that I used to be a believer."

The problem I have with this is that it implies that once you've made a decision based on the information you have at a particular moment in time, that becomes your gospel. You used to be a believer, now you're not. Now, being a believer is wrong because you aren't one any longer. My original question speaks more to a willingness to ongoingly question our own systems and beliefs.

I used to be a vegetarian. Now I'm not. Not because I think it is wrong, or that there isn't some value in vegetarianism, but because, based on my ongoing research and life experience, it isn't the choice for me. Does that mean that I'm never going to read anything about vegetarianism again? Certainly not - I continue to read about diet and nutrition and adjust my choices accordingly.

My example re: modern medicine is there specifically to illustrate that you can't make an assumption about an entire thing when even 1 instance of that thing illustrates the opposite. I can't write off all modern medicine or pharma based on the fact that statins are being pushed on an unwitting public (you've provided an example that proves the opposite). Nor can you write off all 'spirtualism' because one huckster manages to con a few sheep into believing his spaceship is waiting for them behind a comet. I can provide examples of science supporting spiritual teachings and techniques such as meditation if you'd like.

But then you might say, "There are other ways to explain the tangible benefits of meditation, etc." True - but then it raises the question, as in the placebo: does it matter? If the person undertaking the practice benefits, and they 'believe' in a certain philosophy or spiritual approach to it, does it somehow negate or invalidate their experience?

In any case, if you want to talk about falsehood and trickery, shouldn't you aim for the worst offenders? This is what ultimately fascinates me about people who swear by science and scandalize anything 'spiritual'.

Who are the ones who are bilking people for billions of dollars a year, or the ones who are developing weapons of mass destruction for financial benefit? I mean really - attacking a spiritual guru who writes a few books and makes a few million in royalties (without actually endangering lives, and quite frequently actually giving people a sense of empowerment - even if it is 'false' by your standards) vs. a huge pharmaceutical company who keeps a dangerous drug on the market, despite evidence that it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, and even further endangers people? What criteria are you using for your targets?

TheBardWest

TheBardWest wrote: »

King Mob - go back and re-read my original question, re-read your response, and tell me how I'm not supposed to draw the conclusion that you're making gross generalizations based on "worst cases"?

By asking my full position before inferring all manner of untrue things maybe?

TheBardWest wrote: »

You say, "How do you entertain the opposite view? by stating the fact that I used to be a believer."

The problem I have with this is that it implies that once you've made a decision based on the information you have at a particular moment in time, that becomes your gospel. You used to be a believer, now you're not. Now, being a believer is wrong because you aren't one any longer. My original question speaks more to a willingness to ongoingly question our own systems and beliefs.

You mean like engaging believers in online discussions?
Or by using my experience to try and understand other peoples positions?

TheBardWest wrote: »

My example re: modern medicine is there specifically to illustrate that you can't make an assumption about an entire thing when even 1 instance of that thing illustrates the opposite. I can't write off all modern medicine or pharma based on the fact that statins are being pushed on an unwitting public (you've provided an example that proves the opposite). Nor can you write off all 'spirtualism' because one huckster manages to con a few sheep into believing his spaceship is waiting for them behind a comet.

Well for one I'm not writing off all spiritualism. And two I'm not writing off any spiritualism based on one case.
However if you feel it's ok to use the worst cases of failures in modern medicine to illustrate your point then surely you'd have no problem with me using the worse cases either?

TheBardWest wrote: »

I can provide examples of science supporting spiritual teachings and techniques such as meditation if you'd like.

That depends on if you are talking about spiritual as another word for mental or using the word with it's proper meaning.

TheBardWest wrote: »

But then you might say, "There are other ways to explain the tangible benefits of meditation, etc." True - but then it raises the question, as in the placebo: does it matter? If the person undertaking the practice benefits, and they 'believe' in a certain philosophy or spiritual approach to it, does it somehow negate or invalidate their experience?

Because that would make their explanations false.
Can you please explain the benefit of sticking to a false explanation?

TheBardWest wrote: »

In any case, if you want to talk about falsehood and trickery, shouldn't you aim for the worst offenders? This is what ultimately fascinates me about people who swear by science and scandalize anything 'spiritual'.

Who are the ones who are bilking people for billions of dollars a year, or the ones who are developing weapons of mass destruction for financial benefit? I mean really - attacking a spiritual guru who writes a few books and makes a few million in royalties (without actually endangering lives, and quite frequently actually giving people a sense of empowerment - even if it is 'false' by your standards) vs. a huge pharmaceutical company who keeps a dangerous drug on the market, despite evidence that it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, and even further endangers people? What criteria are you using for your targets?

Well for one I'm not attacking any one.
Secondly there are plenty of spiritual gurus out there doing tons of harm.
The difference between them and the evil pharmaceuticals (except you know actual medicine) is the fact that the "gurus" have no oversight.

Also I kinda care about the truth....

TheBardWest

King Mob wrote: »

By asking my full position before inferring all manner of untrue things maybe?

Shall I then assume that every post you make is only a partial statement of your position? If that's the case, you're inviting debate.

King Mob wrote: »

Secondly there are plenty of spiritual gurus out there doing tons of harm.

Define 'tons of harm' and cite some examples please. Also note that "The Taliban" doesn't count, as I'm clearly not talking about religious fundamentalism here. The only one I can think of in recent memory is James Ray, and he has effectively been 'taken off the market' for his wrongdoings. Cite me some examples of, say, how Dr. Wayne Dyer is doing 'tons of harm'.

King Mob wrote: »

The difference between them and the evil pharmaceuticals (except you know actual medicine) is the fact that the "gurus" have no oversight.

The difference is money. I can think of numerous spiritual teachers willing to share their insights and practices at no cost. I can't think of any pharmaceuticals willing to treat patients for free.

And oversight? You're kidding, right? As if the 'oversight' hasn't been wholly bought and sold by the companies which they oversee.

Oversight is only as good as its weakest link - and in the case of spirit or medicine, the weakest link is the mind of the consumer unwilling to question.

King Mob wrote: »

Also I kinda care about the truth....

Or at least a version of it...

TheBardWest

TheBardWest wrote: »

Shall I then assume that every post you make is only a partial statement of your position? If that's the case, you're inviting debate.

Or instead of assuming anything why not just ask me to clarify?

TheBardWest wrote: »

Define 'tons of harm' and cite some examples please. Also note that "The Taliban" doesn't count, as I'm clearly not talking about religious fundamentalism here. The only one I can think of in recent memory is James Ray, and he has effectively been 'taken off the market' for his wrongdoings. Cite me some examples of, say, how Dr. Wayne Dyer is doing 'tons of harm'.

Tons of harm: financial, mental or physical harm as a result of their teachings.
Some examples:
Sai Baba

Good old L. Ron Hubbard.

Or closer to home, a fella called Gundhi Gunderson and his modern mystery school.

TheBardWest wrote: »

The difference is money. I can think of numerous spiritual teachers willing to share their insights and practices at no cost.

And I know plenty of crazy people who'd rant without end for free.
And I can show quite a lot of "spiritual teachers" who are charging ridiculous amounts of money.

TheBardWest wrote: »

I can't think of any pharmaceuticals willing to treat patients for free.

Pharmaceuticals don't charge patients, doctors do.
Doctors provide a tangible service.

Some doctors join volunteer organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières.

TheBardWest wrote: »

And oversight? You're kidding, right? As if the 'oversight' hasn't been wholly bought and sold by the companies which they oversee.

Again judging the entire based on a very small amount of incidents.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Oversight is only as good as its weakest link - and in the case of spirit or medicine, the weakest link is the mind of the consumer unwilling to question.

So exactly what oversight does spiritualism and spiritual teachers have exactly?

TheBardWest wrote: »

Or at least a version of it...

The one based on facts and clear of deception, delusion and other factors?

But it's pretty clear you're not particularly interested in my opposing position despite what you say in your OP....

Nevyn

While it can be good to have such debates to gain an insight it will invariably come down to personal gnosis which is subjective and not empirical, so pure logic will only lead a person so far down any path and atheists can think I am wrong and deluded if they wish, but it's rude to call a person that.

TheBardWest

Ultimately, I didn't post this thread to stir a debate, but rather to find out how others might seek to find common ground with the viewpoints that appear opposite their own. Unfortunately, it has devolved into a logic debate, which as you point out, isn't really winnable in any objective sense.

Quid pro quo seems the order of the day...

King Mob wrote: »

Or instead of assuming anything why not just ask me to clarify?

Noted - when next I read a post of yours, I'll be sure to ask if that is your full position or partial position.

King Mob wrote: »

Sai Baba

Good old L. Ron Hubbard.

Or closer to home, a fella called Gundhi Gunderson and his modern mystery school.

How many deaths are these people responsible for? I'm not at all opposed to the idea that there are sheisters and scam artists in the self-help and spirituality industry. But I'm under no delusion that they are a) inherently more evil than big pharma, the military industrial complex, or any other number of more 'scientific' or 'rational' fields of study which are misused for the personal gain of a few, which not only exploit people, abuse their trust, and steal their money, but they also kill people. So...yeah...Hubbard was a nut job, but his belief system can hardly be called a 'clear and present danger' to the people.

King Mob wrote: »

Pharmaceuticals don't charge patients, doctors do.
Doctors provide a tangible service.

Some doctors join volunteer organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières.

Orthogonal to the original question, but I also like Doctor Who. He's a good guy.

King Mob wrote: »

So exactly what oversight does spiritualism and spiritual teachers have exactly?

None aside from the critical mind of the consumer. But again, people are people. Some may follow a madman down his path to their untimely demise via magical kool-aid, and others (by orders of magnitude) will be sold a bill of goods in the name of science and medicine that is, ultimately, not in their best interest, but in the best interest of those who sell their services and products. There are wackos in either field. The primary difference, in my mind, is the contrast between the perceived value of the service provided vs. the inherent dangers. I'd much rather a thousand people lose their money than a thousand people lose their lives. The former may instill a moment's pause when they're offered the next "Secret", whereas the latter will have to wait until they're reincarnated and insure they choose a different health-care provider.

Again - I'm choosing western medicine here because it offers some fairly clear examples where reason, logic, and science have failed due to the abuse of a select few.

King Mob wrote: »

But it's pretty clear you're not particularly interested in my opposing position despite what you say in your OP....

And I haven't seen you directly entertain any of my points of perspective either, so I'm content to leave my debate with you at this. I'll try to find some common ground with someone else who's willing to entertain the possibility that their world-view may not, in fact, be all-knowing and all-encompassing.

TheBardWest

TheBardWest wrote: »

How many deaths are these people responsible for?

L. Ron and his cult have been implicated in a few.
Sai Baba has been accused of some nasty stuff.
The other guy, none. But plenty of financial damage.

TheBardWest wrote: »

I'm not at all opposed to the idea that there are sheisters and scam artists in the self-help and spirituality industry. But I'm under no delusion that they are a) inherently more evil than big pharma, the military industrial complex, or any other number of more 'scientific' or 'rational' fields of study which are misused for the personal gain of a few, which not only exploit people, abuse their trust, and steal their money, but they also kill people.

So then how is anyone to tell the difference between the scam spiritualist fella and the "real" one?
In science you can check the scientific literature about a certain treatment...
There is nothing similar for spiritual stuff.

TheBardWest wrote: »

So...yeah...Hubbard was a nut job, but his belief system can hardly be called a 'clear and present danger' to the people.

Actually it very much can. But that's another discussion.

TheBardWest wrote: »

None aside from the critical mind of the consumer. But again, people are people.

In that case, what's wrong with investigating spiritual claims and pointing out when they are shown not to be as claimed or lacking in evidence etc?
Surely you're not against educating people before they make decisions?

TheBardWest wrote: »

Some may follow a madman down his path to their untimely demise via magical kool-aid, and others (by orders of magnitude) will be sold a bill of goods in the name of science and medicine that is, ultimately, not in their best interest, but in the best interest of those who sell their services and products. There are wackos in either field. The primary difference, in my mind, is the contrast between the perceived value of the service provided vs. the inherent dangers. I'd much rather a thousand people lose their money than a thousand people lose their lives. The former may instill a moment's pause when they're offered the next "Secret", whereas the latter will have to wait until they're reincarnated and insure they choose a different health-care provider.

But you see for every one failure of medicine there are thousands and millions of lives saved.
The most you can say about the spiritual stuff is some people feel better about themselves, maybe.

Furthermore the science of medicine does not require you to block out other explanations like you think you need to do with the spiritual stuff.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Again - I'm choosing western medicine here because it offers some fairly clear examples where reason, logic, and science have failed due to the abuse of a select few.

Well unless you can show a spiritual thing equivalent to the smallpox vaccine, it's not really a comparison.

TheBardWest wrote: »

And I haven't seen you directly entertain any of my points of perspective either, so I'm content to leave my debate with you at this. I'll try to find some common ground with someone else who's willing to entertain the possibility that their world-view may not, in fact, be all-knowing and all-encompassing.

No, I haven't. This is because I don't fully understand your position.
Hence my questions which will help me understand it.

padma

Just a thought to quickly sum up Maya, and what some of the great and wise worked out.

If you think you know, for sure you don't know, if you know you dont know for sure your going in the right direction.

Scanlas The 2nd

King Mob wrote: »

L. Ron and his cult have been implicated in a few.
Sai Baba has been accused of some nasty stuff.
The other guy, none. But plenty of financial damage.


So then how is anyone to tell the difference between the scam spiritualist fella and the "real" one?
In science you can check the scientific literature about a certain treatment...
There is nothing similar for spiritual stuff.


Actually it very much can. But that's another discussion.


In that case, what's wrong with investigating spiritual claims and pointing out when they are shown not to be as claimed or lacking in evidence etc?
Surely you're not against educating people before they make decisions?


But you see for every one failure of medicine there are thousands and millions of lives saved.
The most you can say about the spiritual stuff is some people feel better about themselves, maybe.

Furthermore the science of medicine does not require you to block out other explanations like you think you need to do with the spiritual stuff.


Well unless you can show a spiritual thing equivalent to the smallpox vaccine, it's not really a comparison.


No, I haven't. This is because I don't fully understand your position.
Hence my questions which will help me understand it.

Have you ever meditated yourself? In fact the vast majority of your time on this planet should be in a meditative state, otherwise you won't enjoy the life that you are nearly as much. When you meditate you are ultra alert, thoughts and emotions cease to possess you. This is spirituality.

I'm an atheist and think religions are ridiculous, but I'm also spiritual and my life wouldn't be the same if I hadn't discovered spirituality through the work of Eckhart Tolle. I actually believe that many of the religions around today were originally based on spirituality but were hijacked by others and derived into the religions we see today.

padma

In my experience having a Guru/Teacher is essential to getting proper guidance in order for the growth of your spirit/spiritual growth. However any teacher who has followers, who follow him instead of themselves growing spiritually becomes trapped in a lineage/tradition. Any Teacher/Guru who does not direct you to learning the truth for yourself, and tells you the truth is and hasn't fully realised the truth themselves.

For this reason, and this reason alone I have no interest in reading books, because for all the knowledge they may possess it is pointless without direct experience. Without direct experience one becomes a student of an idea or becomes in awe of those who have experiences. This leads to the start of belief systems which may in later years turn in to a religion.

In no way am I knocking the messenger here but what I am knocking is the worship of messengers. Instead of actually listening to the message people (in the past) tended to worship the messenger. So what generally happens is devotional energy towards another Human being/Spirit. This directs one to another being instead of towards Love and Truth etc.

By meditating properly you are having direct experience, but I'll use the analogy of a march through a jungle. The one in front uses his machete to clear the BEST path for the 2 behind who clear a path for the three behind, who clear a path further and further. In this way having a Proper Guru who is in the front makes it easier. Whereas reading a book you tend to be on your own in the jungle. Sure workshops etc crop up around the book which may help the student by giving them the right direction of that particular method and this is advised if you are to follow these methods rather than on your own in the jungle.

mr fog light

That is well put

Scanlas The 2nd

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Have you ever meditated yourself?

Have before, don't regularly.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

In fact the vast majority of your time on this planet should be in a meditative state, otherwise you won't enjoy the life that you are nearly as much. When you meditate you are ultra alert, thoughts and emotions cease to possess you. This is spirituality.

That doesn't seem like spirituality. Frankly in sounds like empty faff.
I don't mediate at all and I enjoy life quite well.
I don't let emotions "possess" me, yet still feel them.

If you have become some kind of zen monk who doesn't exhibit emotion, bully for you, but I seriously doubt you have.

Scanlas The 2nd

King Mob wrote: »

Have before, don't regularly.


That doesn't seem like spirituality. Frankly in sounds like empty faff.
I don't mediate at all and I enjoy life quite well.
I don't let emotions "possess" me, yet still feel them.

If you have become some kind of zen monk who doesn't exhibit emotion, bully for you, but I seriously doubt you have.

How do you know you don't meditate? you could be spiritual and you don't know it.

I have plenty of emotion, but when you take a perspective behind it, it becomes it does not possess you. Ever see people arguing and you can tell they don't really care about the reasoning, they just want to one up the other person. That's your ego controlling you. When someone is rude to you or maybe beeps at you on the road and you automatically react to reassert a superior postion you are being controlled by your ego. When you can observe those ego thoughts and emotions as they happen they dissapate over time and lose they're effect. You can almost become amused by them as they happen.

You see this ego behaviour all the time on boards, people feel diminished if someone makes comments to make them look wrong. Being wrong hurts them. Thats caused by the ego. To be wrong doesn't matter through presence which is to be spiritual. That voice in your head denies you access to presence. If your thinking I don't have a voice in my head. Thats the voice in your head speaking.

Scanlas The 2nd

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How do you know you don't meditate? you could be spiritual and you don't know it.

Because I don't?
I don't do proper breathing or any of that "empty your mind" stuff.

I am not spiritual because I don't think people really have any spiritual or supernatural components.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I have plenty of emotion, but when you take a perspective behind it, it becomes it does not possess you. Ever see people arguing and you can tell they don't really care about the reasoning, they just want to one up the other person. That's your ego controlling you. When someone is rude to you or maybe beeps at you on the road and you automatically react to reassert a superior postion you are being controlled by your ego. When you can observe those ego thoughts and emotions as they happen they dissapate over time and lose they're effect. You can almost become amused by them as they happen.

You see this ego behaviour all the time on boards, people feel diminished if someone makes comments to make them look wrong. Being wrong hurts them. Thats caused by the ego. To be wrong doesn't matter through presence which is to be spiritual. That voice in your head denies you access to presence. If your thinking I don't have a voice in my head. Thats the voice in your head speaking.

And again, I don't get super pissed off at every slight either. Most people in fact don't.
And can you explain how saying that you've evolved past ego unlike everyone else, isn't egotistical?

Scanlas The 2nd

I don't believe in anything supernatural either.

If I claim that I don't have an ego and feel superior to others because of it that means I do have an ego at that moment in time, and sometimes I do, I'm not always present. Sometimes I lose presence and become egotistical.

The best athletes are present a lot of the time, you don't need to do breathing techniques to be present.

Scanlas The 2nd

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't believe in anything supernatural either.

Well spiritual implies a supernatural spirit.
But I get the feeling that you're not using the actual definition of the word.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If I claim that I don't have an ego and feel superior to others because of it that means I do have an ego at that moment in time, and sometimes I do, I'm not always present. Sometimes I lose presence and become egotistical.

Like when you claim to have evolved beyond the rest of us hu-mans and have a better control of you ego?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The best athletes are present a lot of the time, you don't need to do breathing techniques to be present.

And I'm not exactly a top athlete either.

So unless I'm secretly meditating without me knowing it....

Nevyn

If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!

Oryx

King Mob wrote: »

I don't do proper breathing or any of that "empty your mind" stuff.

It doesnt have to work like that. Meditation takes many forms, and is more focus of the mind than emptying it. Its can be about being right here, right now, with no thoughts of past or future, or it may have a purpose, where your mind goes on a kind of journey, which you can be guided through.

You may unwittingly do it to music, as part of martial arts, or by some other means. Or like you say, not at all.

As for the op, I always like to look at both sides of something. I study mediumship, so I also study how it is faked (to make sure Im not fooling myself, or anyone else with what I do). I have often been prompted by the forums here to research things like the scientific stance on alternative therapies, and the placebo effect. Its led onto some pretty interesting reading and definitely broadened my knowledge. For anyone involved in an esoteric field that attitude is neccessary, as the saying goes, If youve got an open mind, make sure your brains dont fall out.

Oryx

Oryx wrote: »

It doesnt have to work like that. Meditation takes many forms, and is more focus of the mind than emptying it. Its can be about being right here, right now, with no thoughts of past or future, or it may have a purpose, where your mind goes on a kind of journey, which you can be guided through.

Then by your definition, watching TV counts as meditation.
So then why bother with the breathing and the robe and the Ohming?

Oryx wrote: »

You may unwittingly do it to music, as part of martial arts, or by some other means. Or like you say, not at all.

No, I don't do it at all.
That is my point.

Scanlas The 2nd

No need at all for robes and ohming as you say. That's just the way meditation is portrayed in the media. Washing the the dishes can be meditative. Just focus on the feelings in your hands and movements of your arms as you do it. Thoughts make washing the dishes irritating. Resistance to the present moment makes washing the dishes irritating.

Oryx

Watching tv is not meditative.

Oryx

Oryx wrote: »

Watching tv is not meditative.

But you said:

and is more focus of the mind than emptying it. Its can be about being right here, right now, with no thoughts of past or future, or it may have a purpose, where your mind goes on a kind of journey, which you can be guided through.

This applies to TV as well as any of the other stuff you think counts as meditation.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

No need at all for robes and ohming as you say. That's just the way meditation is portrayed in the media. Washing the the dishes can be meditative.

Well I think Oryx would disagree with you.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just focus on the feelings in your hands and movements of your arms as you do it. Thoughts make washing the dishes irritating. Resistance to the present moment makes washing the dishes irritating.

I don't do this, because it's just washing the dishes.
But if we apply your increasingly silly definition of mediation, any action I apparently take is mediation.

Oryx

Tv is an external distraction. You can pick apart what Im saying, but I do meditate, you admit you dont. So if I can explain it to you in a way that confuses you less, let me know, because your definitely confused about what constitutes meditation. I agree you can meditate while washing up. You can meditate in a single breath. And Ive never omd in my life.

Oryx

Oryx wrote: »

Tv is an external distraction.

And so is washing the dishes.
Your definition makes no sense.

Oryx wrote: »

You can pick apart what Im saying, but I do meditate, you admit you dont.

I know I don't. that's what I said. But I'm being told that I am meditating for some reason.

Oryx wrote: »

So if I can explain it to you in a way that confuses you less, let me know, because your definitely confused about what constitutes meditation. I agree you can meditate while washing up. You can meditate in a single breath. And Ive never omd in my life.

A stricter definition that makes sense and with less hand waving perhaps?

Oryx

Hand waving? Really? I never said you meditated. I said you, or anyone, might unwittingly reach a meditative state without knowing they were doing it, as its not such a mysterious thing as people imagine. Meditation is a state of mind. Some people study for years and go very deep, but it can be something you learn to reach on a lighter level, and as part of doing other things. The main component, always, is to be present in your own mind, totally focussed on what you are doing, right now. Because mostly, we dont do that. We think about what we did earlier. What we are going to do. What someone else is doing. Meditation to me is about totally removing all that distraction. But others who work say, in yoga, may explain it differently. I can only give my own experience.

Oryx

Oryx wrote: »

Hand waving? Really?

Yea really.

Oryx wrote: »

I never said you meditated. I said you, or anyone, might unwittingly reach a meditative state without knowing they were doing it, as its not such a mysterious thing as people imagine.

And considering that your definition of a meditative state is so nebulous and wide, that's not very surprising.

Oryx wrote: »

Meditation is a state of mind. Some people study for years and go very deep, but it can be something you learn to reach on a lighter level, and as part of doing other things. The main component, always, is to be present in your own mind, totally focussed on what you are doing, right now. Because mostly, we dont do that. We think about what we did earlier. What we are going to do. What someone else is doing. Meditation to me is about totally removing all that distraction. But others who work say, in yoga, may explain it differently. I can only give my own experience.

And what exactly is this "being present" stuff?
Sounds a bit like a tautology.

And why exactly does watching TV not fit into this definition?

Scanlas The 2nd

Watching television is not meditative because of the perspective of your focus it puts you in. You get stuck in the thoughts that it stimulates in you. It disconnects you from life. Intead of being the observer of thoughts and emotions, you think you are the thoughts and emotions. That can be confusing when you first hear it.

Oryx

From here. With less hand waving, hopefully. Google is your friend.

Many people have wondered from time to time what exactly meditation is. There are many different answers to that question. At its core, though, meditation is the act of clearing the mind of distractions to achieve an internal goal. The process is incredibly personal and will change for each person based on their personal notions of meditation. A simple explanation of meditation could be the act of focusing ones energies inwardly, to promote growth.
It may be helpful for those just starting out with meditation to consider the origins of the word. Meditation comes to us from the Latin words meditari - to think, to dwell upon, to exercise the mind - and mederi - to heal. The original Sanskrit word for meditation was medha - wisdom. Combining these definitions, you can reach the conclusion that meditation means to use one's mind to heal (mind and/or body) and gain wisdom.
The practice of meditating is not new. It has been a common element in most of the world's religions in various forms since the birth of religion. As such, much of its history has been devoted to the realm of the spiritual. Buddhists in particular, have embraced meditation as a way of gaining enlightenment.
But there are other uses for meditation that are being employed in modern life. Meditation has been proven to be an effective alternative for drugs in dealing with stress. By clearing one's mind of all distractions, the practitioner can achieve a sense of calm that is lacking in our busy lives. Meditation may take longer to perform, but the results are more long-lasting and come with none of the side effects of medication.
There is also a growing body of evidence being put forth that states the mind actually has the ability to heal physical ailments. The theory of mind-body healing proponents is that as the brain enters into different states of awareness (measured by frequency length of brains electrical activity); it releases hormones that promote cell repair. There is still a long way to go, before this becomes fully accepted by the medical community, but is interesting.
Meditation does not need to be a formal activity. It has common to refer to hobbies that are found to be calming as meditation. For some people this means that their "meditation" may be listening to music or baking. While not as all encompassing as the traditional concept of meditation, this still has the benefit of reducing stress. Stress has been shown to aggravate many physical medical conditions. Thus even immersing oneself into a hobby can achieve the benefits of meditation.
As you can see meditation has many forms. There is the traditional Yogi or Buddhist interpretation of what meditation is, as well as the more loosely defined calming hobby activities. The one thing that all forms of meditation share in common is that they involve cutting out distractions and focusing one's mind to achieve a goal (enlightenment, wisdom, healing, calming).

Scanlas The 2nd

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Watching television is not meditative because of the perspective of your focus it puts you in. You get stuck in the thoughts that it stimulates in you. It disconnects you from life. Intead of being the observer of thoughts and emotions, you think you are the thoughts and emotions. That can be confusing when you first hear it.

No it's just confusing.

The exact same argument can be made for any activity you believe counts as mediation.

Oryx wrote: »

From here. With less hand waving, hopefully. Google is your friend.

And unfortunately that isn't less hand wavy at all.

From that definition anything at all still counts as mediation.

But I like how they use techno-babble as well.

Oryx

Then King mob, I suggest you get out in the big wide web and find a definition that does suit you, as the one I gave does a good job of condensing the concept of meditation into a few paragraphs. Unless you are only here to antagonise those who try to answer your queries sensibly.

Scanlas The 2nd

King Mob wrote: »

No it's just confusing.

The exact same argument can be made for any activity you believe counts as mediation.


And unfortunately that isn't less hand wavy at all.

From that definition anything at all still counts as mediation.

But I like how they use techno-babble as well.

I'll try to simplify. Stop thinking, become really aware of the feelings and sensations in your body. Breathing in and out slowly in deep breaths can help.

Maybe you are looking for fireworks and explosions when you think of meditating. Its a simple thing.

I know where you are coming from, I was always a logical person ( I have a degree in mathematics). I thought all of this talk of meditation was woo woo Bullsh%t that was pointless, I'd hear people say, I'm not religous but I'm spiritual and I'd think WTF does that mean, deluded idiots or something like that. But it really does make sense and make your life so much more enjoyable and richer, it's like my life is now in HD3D with surround sound whereas it used to be like those charlie chaplan movies. It's about where you put the focus of your attention.

Oryx

Oryx wrote: »

Then King mob, I suggest you get out in the big wide web and find a definition that does suit you, as the one I gave does a good job of condensing the concept of meditation into a few paragraphs.

Unfortunatly definitions aren't meant to suit people, they are to actually define the word in as strict as possible terms.
The definition you gave does not do this because I cannot see how it differentiates meditation from anything that requires a bit of concentration.
Nor does it explain my other question to you, why can't watching TV be considered meditation when it fixes your definition perfectly?

Oryx wrote: »

Unless you are only here to antagonise those who try to answer your queries sensibly.

No, I'm just asking every simple questions. If you think this is somehow antagonising....

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'll try to simplify. Stop thinking, become really aware of the feelings and sensations in your body. Breathing in and out slowly in deep breaths can help.

Which I and most people don't do, and is not usual practise in most activities contrary to your and Oryx's claims.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Maybe you are looking for fireworks and explosions when you think of meditating. Its a simple thing.

I'm not expecting or looking for anything when I think of meditation because I've yet to hear a good definition that makes sense.
But you do notice how you contradict yourself on this point in this next paragraph?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I know where you are coming from, I was always a logical person ( I have a degree in mathematics). I thought all of this talk of meditation was woo woo Bullsh%t that was pointless, I'd hear people say, I'm not religous but I'm spiritual and I'd think WTF does that mean, deluded idiots or something like that. But it really does make sense and make your life so much more enjoyable and richer, it's like my life is now in HD3D with surround sound whereas it used to be like those charlie chaplan movies. It's about where you put the focus of your attention.

Oryx

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunatly definitions aren't meant to suit people,

In fact, sometimes they are. Define light to a child and youll say one thing. Define light to a physicist, you wont contradict yourself, but youll word it in a completely different way.

The definition you gave does not do this because I cannot see how it differentiates meditation from anything that requires a bit of concentration.

Well then youve got it. The only difference between light meditation and deep meditation is the level of concentration. But in essence, yes its concentration.

Nor does it explain my other question to you, why can't watching TV be considered meditation when it fixes your definition perfectly?

I said way up there ^ that tv is an external distraction. How can you be concentrating on your own thoughts if youre watching xfactor and thinking of what Katie is wearing? I understand meditation as concentrating on whats going on inside your head, or the feelings of your body, rather than what your senses are picking up from outside. Did I wave my hands just then at all?

No, I'm just asking every simple questions. If you think this is somehow antagonising....

It must be the way you ask them, then. Something you should look at, really.

Which I and most people don't do, and is not usual practise in most activities contrary to your and Oryx's claims.

I havent said most people do it?

I'm not expecting or looking for anything when I think of meditation because I've yet to hear a good definition that makes sense.

What do you think is meant by meditation?

Ambersky

Entertaining Opposites Releasing attachment To Positions


I really liked the question

A recent thread got me thinking: How often do we entertain the ideas of our most staunch opposition?

I guess the answer to that question is not very well really

On the whole television, meditation, discussion Id like to state my position firmly in the middle on this one.
Dosent bother me, Ive explored some forms of spirituality deeply, Ive meditated, had estatic experiences, left all that - well most of it anyway cos a lot of it was woo woo or worse.
Now after a hard days work, engaging with the world, I like to unwind, loose myself watching a bit of TV, and allow my attention flit from one thing to the next, remote in hand.
Occasionally when Im ready, I do my best to focus and attend to one of the wonderful documentaries or other such serious things available to me, which I would be unaware of without the hard work of so many people who brought this amazing gift of television and all its insights to me.

But thats that issue and in my opinion.

With people on the net or others who (sorry guys) dont impact on my life too much I can simply choose to argue or not. Im better able to distance, choose my arguments and simply let it go by.
On Boards, things are nicely divided so that you can usually find people who will broadly share your interests and keep away from those whose interests are in opposition to your own.
Even then Ive managed to get into a few heated disagreements and I dont like it, I dont feel like it gets me anywhere, this attempt to set everyone elses thinking to rights.

Im a sort of a pinko liberal lefty with an interest, no kind of infused with a spiritual dimension, I find it difficult to talk about or share.
Ive been hurt by the roman catholic church and a couple of other ritually type things, bla bla. So I can enjoy those having a bash at religion, heck I can join in and theres nothing like an ex anything for being anti that thing.

I can see the point in the arguments against religion and spirituality is so open I think anyone dabbling in it would benifit from doing a course in critical thinking to avoid some of the many common pitfalls.

So the origional title Entertaining Opposites Releasing attachment To Positions

I like the feeling of non attachment, I feel free and I can see how it allows others to be.
I understand that non attachment dosent have to mean, not caring or disengaging, but rather a non grasping.
As I understand it its the grasping nature thats the problem.

When I feel my sense of identity is being threatened if I let someone express these ideas that I am attached to, then the theory is, my unhealthy ego is attached to the idea.
I identify with that idea, the idea is part of my identity and anyone challenging the idea challenges me and I will defend the idea as though defending myself.
This I think makes for a lot of around and around arguing, attack and defense, pushing each others buttons, insults, and not a lot of listening, learning or adapting anyones thinking - usually.
This goes for spiritual ideas, theorys, teachers, traditions, gurus, etc as much as for any other idea.

That sounds simple and sometimes I can do it but I havent worked out how to balance my political and spiritual self.
My political self wants, for the sake of all humankind , to get everyone thinking correctly and therefore behaving better and bringing peace and justice to the world.
Sigh!

padma

To put it simply, to my understanding, entertaining opposites and releasing attachment to positions comes down to basic human trait of Love and Respect for your fellow beings and surrendering.

I fully respect that we all come from differing backgrounds and have different understandings. Let me share some things that have passed my way. Please remember I am doing my best to use words to explain something which the human mind sometimes finds complex yet another part of us may recognise.

Though I am not of the character of practising the mind to calm the mind. As I see this just strenthens the mind. In the same way that you are just using a stronger part of the mind to control a weaker part of the mind. So in essence you are still using the mind waiting for those few seconds to turn in to minutes where you are not thinking, instead your just focusing on breath etc. All in all you are still using your mind. How many people have reached Full enlightenment or Yoga using this technique? Yes I am aware of a more passive meditation of being the observer yet one must look in to who is the observer etc etc etc. To me it seems very futile and can become very boring too.

Don't get me wrong I see the brain as a gift, yet it is only 1 of our consciousnesses. Unfortunately it is more often the case the more dominant one. This is the problem that I see with this method, you've got brain 2 looking at brain 1 and so on so forth. The other consciousnesses become dormant.

Now down to the grass roots level of most human existence. There are many different emotions dominating their daily being, from anger, jealousy, hatred, envy, hurt feelings, dissatisfaction, sadness etc. Some I believe the Buddha may have said, it takes maybe 1 thousand of lifetimes to fully understand anger and fully surrender it. What I'm getting to here is that the key word here is surrender and until we fully surrender all of these emotions we will be forever tied down to the trap of our ego, Thus continuing with not being able to fully release our attachments.

So, to be free from all of these emotions what do we do? Do we train our mind? Do we take stronger control of our being? Do we accept them as a part of us? Yet when these emotions surface yes they jump up at us, do we intend to release them each time? But they keep coming back all the time. Why?

Maybe because we have been keeping them, because our ego likes them, a part of us is not fully able to forgive, not fully able to surrender. The answer is because quite frankly we have too much attachment to them. If we thought of all the times in our life we were sad etc, and then suddenly sadness comes up and you release it. What are you releasing? How much are you releasing? What is it being replaced with? Emptiness? Are you releasing your attachment to this BIT of sadness? Many questions and the mind can only observe the analytical mathematics of this one incident.

Surrendering is the key here. Yet for all of our knowing certain emotions are bad for us, they still exist and have for a very Long time. Humans and other beings who incarnate need help with this matter, but we look for the help in the wrong place.

I'm going off wind here so I'm just gonna break it down easy language for us all.

So, having a healthy dose of Love within ones Heart, Understanding and respect for all of your fellow beings is paramount to growing in your daily life. Being able to fully surrender ALL your attachments and anchoring within your Heart where there is Love, Joy, peace and calmness abound you are entertaining opposites and you are releasing attachments to positions and at the same time staying within the peacefulness and happiness within. This is because you are within the Love within your Heart And being within the Love, you are directly not being tied in to emotions that surface when in the heat of debate, but essentially you are relaxed and smiling happily while meeting people with Love and peace from within.

The previous discussion about meditating during your daily life IE, washing the dishes, taking the kids to the park, practising being here and now etc, There is one thing missing in all of this PRACTICE. and that is you are practicing instead of living it? Am I close to the mark here? From my Understanding if you are not anchored within the Love Joy and happiness within and are just practicing mindfullness some people are simply missing out on the reasons why they first started meditating and that was to become more peaceful, calm, happy, joyful and loving in their daily lives. So to start with first step is
1, Relax,
2, Smile,
3, Surrender,
4, Be happy,
5 relax more,
6, smile sweeter and freer, ( come on you can smile even sweeter)
7, Smile sweetly freely and happily, (cutchiecutchie coo)
8 Smile, sweetly freely and joyfully to your Spiritual Heart
9, Follow the Nice feeling within your Heart (L)
10, keep following the nice feeling while letting go all thoughts burdens emotions and attachments.
11, Enjoy and be Grateful for the opportunity to surrender all thoughts burdens and attachments.
12, Just let your Heart be free, follow the feeling completely

Scanlas The 2nd

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunatly definitions aren't meant to suit people, they are to actually define the word in as strict as possible terms.
The definition you gave does not do this because I cannot see how it differentiates meditation from anything that requires a bit of concentration.
Nor does it explain my other question to you, why can't watching TV be considered meditation when it fixes your definition perfectly?


No, I'm just asking every simple questions. If you think this is somehow antagonising....


Which I and most people don't do, and is not usual practise in most activities contrary to your and Oryx's claims.

I'm not expecting or looking for anything when I think of meditation because I've yet to hear a good definition that makes sense.
But you do notice how you contradict yourself on this point in this next paragraph?

When I say it's like HD3D TV that is what I mean, but looking at a tree in HD3D is hardly fireworks. Meditation gives you an inner peace, you become more aware of all the subtle aspects of the world around you as your focus of attention is outside of your head more often. Meditation makes the world a lighter place, things that seemed like big problems don't seem so serious.

Ambersky

I think my last post was a bit wishy washy and because I think this is a really interesting and important topic, that I have actually been thinking about in my own life recently I would like to make another attempt at answering the question

How often do we entertain the ideas of our most staunch opposition?

and the idea of Entertaining Opposites Releasing attachment To Positions.

Just look at this thread, the number of replies its receiving and how fast it is being responded to. What could have aroused such interest and intensity in what is usually such a quiet and slow area.
I think this is because someone, ie King Mob in this case, is presenting this forum, on religion and spirituality, with "staunch opposition".
So how are we here and now entertaining the ideas of King Mob?
Well we can all see and analize that for ourselves and we will probably come up with several differing conclusions.

Those of us who aspire to a spiritual model of living that is free from emotions like anger, irritation, defensiveness, impatience etc will realise how quickly the face of serenity is cracked when one is dealing with the realities of daily life.
Unless one is living in a bubble, cut off from all humanity, one is going to be faced with contradiction and opposition.
How deeply this impacts depends on how much the issue being challenged means to you and how important the relationship with the person posing the challenge is to you.
One of the most difficult things is, that it is the very people you love the most who will provide the deepest challenges.
This is as it should be.

We owe a debt of gratitude to those who break away, who analize, who criticise, who point out errors, who are not convinced, who differ.

There are many institutions whos errors and injustices have harmed and distroyed the lives of many individuals who claim at the time of the harm doing, nobody knew what was happening. They claim their ignorance as the grounds for their innocence.
Its important to listen to the voices of those who say something isnt working.
Who say the implications of beliefs we have are leading to bad things happening, maybe just for some minority individuals, but faulty thinking can lead to faulty actions even when the origional idea seemed benign.
This means that spiritual "for me" thinking is not enough.
If spirituality is to be more than an, Im all right to hell with the rest of you kind of thing, we need to listen and think about the implications of our beliefs.
Sometimes it wont be obvious to us initially, sometimes we wont like hearing about it, sometimes we wont want the little we have to hang onto to be shattered but what is left will be real and better for it.

Those who question or just dont believe also help to weed out errors in our thinking and help us define what we do believe or think.

Opposition also helps us check out just how well we are doing.
I find I am a lovely person when Im living by myself and just having limited interactions with friends over coffee and a chat.
Its my nearest and dearest that provide the most oppositon, constantly proving their otherness and moving out of my projections and plans.

In order to realy relate to another we have to listen to what they are really saying, think about it and be open to the possibility of it affecting or impacting us somewhat. Communication is a two way thing.
Having a spiritual model that blocks this possibility of another initiating change in one by blocking and controlling all feelings that arise in that interaction is in my opinion counter productive and sad.
You probably know what Im talking about if you have ever had to interact or challenge in any way that spiritual type with a constant smile on their face that says, Im not going to let you in to affect me in any way -Im holding the spiritual knowledge and it trumps yours, so Ill keep smiling to show you how spiritual and advanced I am. Its not nice, its not spiritual, its just controling.

Some spiritual groups offer advice on how to deal with opposition.
What kind of advice have you had or heard about and how do you do with trying to put that advice into practice in real life.
Maybe those of us on a spiritual path would benifit from some feedback on how it feels to be on the receiving end of some of our behaviours that have resulted from that advice.

padma

Ambersky wrote: »

.

Some spiritual groups offer advice on how to deal with opposition.
What kind of advice have you had or heard about and how do you do with trying to put that advice into practice in real life.
Maybe those of us on a spiritual path would benifit from some feedback on how it feels to be on the receiving end of some of our behaviours that have resulted from that advice.

Example 1, A woman who is a stay at home mom, cooks her husband a lovely meal. She was out that morning buying goods in the market. Came home and cooked the best meal she has ever cooked. The husband comes home, sits at the table in a foul mood and takes a few bites of the meal and says I don't like this. I've eaten already today. The woman gets angry, and lashes out at the husband, who is in a foul mood argument happens, and the night is spoiled, grudges are formed so on so forth.

Example 2, A woman who is a stay at home mom, cooks her husband a lovely meal. She was out that morning buying goods in the market. Came home and with great Love she cooks a beautiful meal, so happy to be cooking, so lovingly preparing the dish. The husband comes home sits at the table in a foul mood and takes a few bites of the meal and says "I dont like this Ive eaten already today" The woman smiles and with great Love and understanding picks up his meal and wraps it up in the fridge for her lunch the next day.

You see whatever you do do it with Love, Do it from your Heart, be free from all expectation. You do not need to be emotional. It serves you no purpose. So when around others who are emotional, being the one person who is calm and peaceful and loving, the situation changes. The anger that could have arisen, the negative Karma that could have been created has dissipated. This is how we can live our lives.

I agree in some instances it can be difficult, yet only you can make your Heart dirty, no other being can dirty your Heart. This is very big matter actually. Woman 1 in the story got angry. Woman 2 in the story didn't. So the advice is be an instrument of Love to ALL other beings, not just those who it is easy to Love, but to everyone as we are all connected closer than we can imagine.

It's the same with those who shock you, murderers, thieves, terrorist or whatever, they do not know about the Heart. For sure the people who blow up bombs think that they are right. Yes they are right, but only in their heads. Everyone is right in their own heads. Yet if they used their Heart they would know killing another is counter-productive to the condition of their Heart. So the best advice is be within your Heart at all times, and smile from your Heart to ALL beings, without any limitations placed by the brain or other parts.

The only lasting beauty is the beauty of the Heart - Rumi
There is a light that shines beyond all things on Earth, beyond us all, beyond the highest Heavens, This is the light that shines in your Heart.- Chandogya Upanishad 3.13.7
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or touched, They must be felt with the Heart. - Helen Keller
And my favourite
There are so many good things about the Heart, However knowing about it and talking about it are not enough, to gain all of it's benefits, we have to use it properly - Irmansyah Effendi.

Ambersky

Ok padma cards on the table. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the catholic marriage advisory bureau, say sometime in the 50s or 60s? :eek:

Seriously though, we are all well aware surely of just where spiritual advice like that, particularly to stay at home moms leads us.

padma

The analogy was used to record how a person would react. The advice isn't in the form of telling people to go out and cook for your husband. It is simply giving a situation whereby the husband is very mean and confrontational and nasty because he is in a bad mood. And after the woman spent all that day cooking him his meal she was in the first instance very upset and hurt by his reaction. The point is the second lady simply avoided a negative reaction and ends up with her lunch for the next day.

What is wrong with cooking your husband a nice meal after working all day? Maybe if I said it was a stay at home dad, it wouldn't of had a reaction. Am I correct? So you can replace the woman with a man, it doesn't matter.

Ambersky

Padma you have touched on something here, ie the role of women in religion and spirituality, that is of particular interest to me.
I wasnt being serious about the marriage bureau, I was teasing you a bit.

The advice to women in marriages to men who are disrespectful to them to smile and be even more loving to their husbands, has been given by religious advisors from many different religious traditions for centuries.

Unfortunatley this was not just a religious tradition but a social construct.
In 1975 only 10% of married women were in full time employment and up untill that date the state enforced a marriage bar ending the employment of any women employed by it on marriage.
Women who were in employment were not entitled to equal pay for equal work because it was believed men should earn more than women to be able to support a family.

All this is changing, women still do not earn as much as men but are catching up in Ireland at least.
The point Im making is there needs to be a recognition of social constructs.
Women have traditionally been in subservient positions, denied access to power and money in religion and society.
Hence it is no accident the stay at home person in your story, and so many other stories, is a woman.
Society is designed that way.

These days there is financial pressure on women in the opposite direction to get out into the job market, but as jobs decline we will probaby see more women in part time, low pay jobs, being family breadwinners.
The role of women will be designed not only and probably not primarily by the individual but by the needs of society.
Individually it is also probably a good thing to let a bad mood slide by without comment on occasion or untill an opportune time to discuss the matter arises.

Women who have been stay at home mums, dependant financially on their husbands and with little prospect of earning enough money to support themselves and their children should they leave that marriage, have often gone to churches looking for advice on how to deal with difficulties in their marriage.
Here they were usually met by celibate men, who had been taught a theory and were passing it on.
Women were often seen as being mainly responsible for setting the tone in relationships, for making their men angry, arousing men, calming men, etc.
If a woman became pregnant it was the womans fault, hence we have had the magdalene laundrys.

Women who have been in violent relationships, and we are learning that family violence in much more common than was realised or cared to recognise, know that to smile at a man who "comes home in a foul mood" and says he dosent like that dinner, is often not enough to stop the mood he has come home with.
Many women know that if you behave like a door mat you will get treated like a door mat.

Again I am not calling for a reversal of roles it is not enought for the woman to have a turn at meeting the man with the same disrespect .
What I am calling for is real communication, not a denial of emotion or a no holds barred letting loose of emotion, but real respectful communication.

Spiritually I think some of this comes from western interpretatons of ego lesness.
In my reading on the subject I came across an explanation I really liked, it said that eastern teachers have a tendency to assume that we in the west have already got as adults, a normal functioning ego and are willing to try to get rid of the emotionally charged solid sense of ego.
It says that many spiritual practitioners in the west misunderstand the distinction between the two types of ego and assume we have to let go, or rid ourselves of all ego, even healthy individuation.
This leaves us incapable of relating because we dont know who we are, cant tell someone how we feel, cant tell them how they affect us, cant say what we want, dont know what makes us happy or unhappy.
Also so much emphasis on "the light" or happiness or love can be a form of addiction, an unwillingness or avoidance of The Shadow, which must be faced and will not be denied.

The long and short of it is I think if we can face all this disappointment at our own shortcomings, our embarassing contradictions, our failures in putting our theories into practice, we can find we are lovable and are ok in our fallibility, with our Shadow, in our humanity, dark side, moodiness and all.

padma

Ok thank you for the effort you put in to your post. It is very interesting.

The situation that was outlined was a very deep situation, one that has massive learning involved. However, it was just an analogy off the top of my head. To use a different analogy which if you look deeper you will get the point of my original post which is in response to some advice you asked people to share according to their understandings in dealing with everyday situations.

A person is asked by their boss to do a task. This person puts all their effort in to the task. The boss arrives 2 hours later and criticises the task that they did. The person is upset and frustrated and carries around all day a feeling of uselessness, also bearing a grudge against their boss for lack of good management skills.

This person's desire for recognition for their effort was not recognised. Also they wanted the boss to compliment them when this didn't come about. They became very upset. It is their WANTS and their DESIRES which are the stumbling block. The ever present ego.

A different person is asked by their boss in the same scenario. So they carry out the task with Love and happiness with no desires or wants of recognition from their boss. The boss criticises the task. The person smiles, nods and moves on.

The lesson is about surrendering any situation we are in. So if we are controlled by our ego it is very hard to surrender a situation because the control is so strong. Whereas when you do everything with Love, you are not held by any of your wants, needs or desires. Thus being free from the trap that people keep on falling through each time.

So the essence of my post is that You don't always get what you want. Why try? Even if you do get what you want all you are really getting is your ego being satisfied.

The 2nd person, even if the boss compliment them, they move on. They stay within the Love. Life is not about getting what you want, it is about sharing the Love to others. That is another story.

Ambersky

The way I would interpret your story Padma is that the second person had a healthy, intact, normaly functioning, ego and was not operating out of an emotionally charged solid sense of ego and so could let the episode slide by, this time. They had a secure sense of self which was not shaken by the hopefully unwarrented behaviour or changing moods of the boss.

I would be asking further questions however, especially in the case of the first person as to whether the criticism was constructive or unfair. If unfair I would like to know if this is the way the employee is treated all the time, whether there are any colleagues who are also being treated in the the same way or whether this treatment is reserved for this employee only. If so is it part of bullying campaign or any other such personally aimed behaviour.
Has it got to the stage where perhaps it is time to have a chat with the employer in order to improve the atmosphere at work and the effectiveness of the time spent there. These are also possibilities and need to be considered.

I think to do with the OPs origional question there are several different approaches to religion and spirituality that divide us.
Today I was thinking that some of it could be understood by thinking of some of it as a kind of Liberal Conservative divide.

There have been some studies done on the different ways Liberals and Conservatives make moral choices, the kinds of things they think are important to consider in making decisions.
http://www.psypost.org/2010/07/difference-moral-foundation-liberal-conservative-1060
In my own thinking Ive come to believe that spiritual beliefs that comes form a kind of Gnostic, New Thought, basis, such as Eckhart Tole, A Course in Miracles, The Law of Attraction,etc could be considered conservative in nature.
I think Athestists and Agnostics, followers of Liberation Theologies, social activists,etc could be thought of as liberal.

I say this second group could be considered liberal because they are interested in the way theories, beliefs, practices, affect the group, or society in general, they are interested in and see things as part of an inter connected system.
It is not enough for them for a practice to work for the individual only. They follow an idea or theory through and look at how it has actually in given circumstances, or historically, actually worked out and affected people.
The idea of a personal truth or a personal religion intended to relieve the suffering of one or the few is seen as illogical, selfish and contradictory.
For this reason they want to understand how systems and things work in order to make things fairer and more just for individuals within the context of the society in which they live.
This identifying with the pain of others and seeking social change is a way of expressing compassion.
They place a lot of emphasis on understanding, they have a poor tolerance threshold for injustice.

The first group are interested in the transformation of the individual.
They (I think because I belong to the first group, the liberals) believe you can only change things by changing first the individual.
Hence they seem to have a highly individual sense of spirituality.
There seems to be a viewing of spirituality as someting special, less ordinary, not of this world, which I think leads to a lack of understanding or even interest in "worldly things".
At times it could appear to be an expression of magical thinking, where the individual experiences events happening eg the sun rising, sickness occuring or the stock market falling and believes as the center of their own universe that these events were caused or were happening purely around and because of them.
Reason does not seem to have as much importance as a thing feeling right "for me" and there is a large emphasis on things "working for me", as a means of deciding their worth.
There is a higher tolerance for injustice, people can be happy even when bad things are happening, and a lack of interest in the context or systems causing an injustice. Things can be put to rights by the individual thinking differently or adopting a different attitude.
Compasssion is expressed as a wish for every individual to feel even in adversity a sense of inner peace.

One side drives the other crazy (speaking personally here )

Both sides i think want to bring about an end to suffering and maybe each needs to learn a little of the other.
Maybe the conservatives could get up off those cushions, learn to listen to others and understand systems of injustice.
Maybe the liberals could get out of their heads and all that running around doing things and learn to feel some inner peace.



Heres a little TED Talk that I think gets to the center of things and which maybe all of us can agree on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhHJ4DRZNZM