A failure of understanding

[Vkothii]

A conversation:

Do you believe in God?

-I believe in myself, yes, of course.
So, you mean you think you're God?

-That isn't what I said. I don't have to think I'm anything, to be something, do I?
But you believe you are?

-Belief is that which comes from seeing, or hearing, you know, being with, if you will.
With what?

-With myself, of course, with me. It's like communing with something that you learn to see is not something other than you. Of course it isn't, how could you be with yourself if you didn't exist?
Commune, what does that mean though, doesn't that mean to go and meet with?

-Yes, but that's a conceptual problem with language, the word has a religious meaning too. You don't need to go anywhere or make a call to someone and talk to them on the spirit phone or anything. You can believe, if that's what you think you need to, that God is outside you and you need to go and talk to him. I don't need to go anywhere, or say anything to anyone.

[Enmos]

The person answering is hugely evasive and, frankly, makes little sense.

[Vkothii]

In what way are the answers hugely evasive? What do the answers evade?
BTW it isn't meant to make sense - note the title.

[Xelios]

This is the age old problem with language, it's clumsy. The word God is an extreme example of this. You may attach a completely different meaning to that word than I do, which leads to misunderstanding. Before we could start using the word god in a conversation we'd have to have a whole seperate conversation about how we define god for ourselves. That conversation might spawn another clarification, of words like belief or spirit.

Language is really inefficient when it comes to sharing complex ideas, and there are clear points where language simply fails altogether. Ask someone who's taken LSD or mushrooms to describe the experience to you, if you've never had a similar experience it's impossible. The other person will come across as an overly metaphysical idiot because there simply aren't words to describe these things, and if there are they have completely different meanings for different people.

[Enmos]

In what way are the answers hugely evasive? What do the answers evade?
BTW it isn't meant to make sense - note the title.

The question was "Do you believe in God ?", he never got an answer.

[Vkothii]

The question was "Do you believe in God ?", he never got an answer.What do you mean by "an answer"? You mean a "here's the answer" kind of answer?

[Enmos]

What do you mean by "an answer"? You mean a "here's the answer" kind of answer?

It seems a simple enough question. A simply yes or no will suffice.
After that you may explain how exactly you view your God (in light of your religion or self-defined).

[Vkothii]

A simply yes or no will suffice.What's the question though? Do I "believe in" God? That kind of isn't a question. It's like being asked: "do you believe in the fact you're breathing"?

Don't you think the question should be: "do you believe in the existence of the same God that I 'believe in' - the one you have to go to a Church to commune with and talk to the representatives of? You know - men of God, priests and so on?"

A "simple" answer to a "simple" question, huh?

[shedevilx]

there is still "stigma" to say - No,

can provoke hatred within the masses and as a consequence>> affect business

see what they do- just open your mouth and they will ban your sousages from their shops :mad:

[spidergoat]

What's the question though? Do I "believe in" God? That kind of isn't a question. It's like being asked: "do you believe in the fact you're breathing"?

Don't you think the question should be: "do you believe in the existence of the same God that I 'believe in' - the one you have to go to a Church to commune with and talk to the representatives of? You know - men of God, priests and so on?"

A "simple" answer to a "simple" question, huh?

God as a metaphor for life the universe and everything is a God that even atheists can believe in. It makes the word almost meaningless.

[Vkothii]

It makes the word almost meaningless.It's an unfortunate word, in many ways. Two people having a discussion about God, can convince themselves they're talking about the same subject, but they aren't.

[Enmos]

What's the question though? Do I "believe in" God? That kind of isn't a question. It's like being asked: "do you believe in the fact you're breathing"?

Don't you think the question should be: "do you believe in the existence of the same God that I 'believe in' - the one you have to go to a Church to commune with and talk to the representatives of? You know - men of God, priests and so on?"

A "simple" answer to a "simple" question, huh?

The question in itself is simple.
For instance, you would answer 'yes [+explanation]' while I would answer 'no'.

[Vkothii]

The question in itself is simple.Well, of course, you can make an assumption, if you want to.
I don't bother with explaining my belief using any language that's loaded with preconceptions.

My experience is that there is no explanation that actually explains or answers what people are asking. It's almost like they want an answer that I can't give them, or they're expecting something, or they "already know the answer", or think they do.
They may also think the subject is "simple", and they don't have the problem explaining it that I do.
But in reality, they are just as lost for words when it comes to the actual explaining.

[Enmos]

Well, of course, you can make an assumption, if you want to.
I don't bother with explaining my belief using any language that's loaded with preconceptions.

My experience is that there is no explanation that actually explains or answers what people are asking. It's almost like they want an answer that I can't give them, or they're expecting something, or they "already know the answer", or think they do.
They may also think the subject is "simple", and they don't have the problem explaining it that I do.
But in reality, they are just as lost for words when it comes to the actual explaining.

But when someone asks you whether or not you believe in God they want to hear a yes or no, plus maybe an explanation of what exactly it is you believe in.
What would your answer be when someone asked you that question ?
Would you start explaining something they most likely don't get and aren't interested in anyway, or would you just say yes (which is an truthful answer, however, not very detailed) ?

[Simon Anders]

God as a metaphor for life the universe and everything is a God that even atheists can believe in. It makes the word almost meaningless.If you toss in that the whole thing is conscious, a pantheist version of God, that has meaning.

[draqon]

The person answering is hugely evasive and, frankly, makes little sense.

I would have to agree with you there.

[Simon Anders]

But when someone asks you whether or not you believe in God they want to hear a yes or no, plus maybe an explanation of what exactly it is you believe in.
What would your answer be when someone asked you that question ?
Would you start explaining something they most likely don't get and aren't interested in anyway, or would you just say yes (which is an truthful answer, however, not very detailed) ?The context of the discussion seems important to me. It seems like you are imagining a conversation with an acquaintance out in the world. But here in a portion of the philosophy forums a simple yes or no could be quite misleading and raising the complexity of the issue fits.

[Vkothii]

But when someone asks you whether or not you believe in God they want to hear a yes or no, plus maybe an explanation of what exactly it is you believe in.

If they want to hear "yes", or "no", then, as far as I'm concerned, they've already answered their own question.
My response to whether or not I believe in God is usually along the lines I've outlined already.
Or I might turn it back on them and ask them the same question, or: "what do you mean by 'God'? What's that?"

[JDawg]

If they want to hear "yes", or "no", then, as far as I'm concerned, they've already answered their own question.
My response to whether or not I believe in God is usually along the lines I've outlined already.
Or I might turn it back on them and ask them the same question, or: "what so you mean by 'God'? What's that?"

So you never really answer the question.

[Vkothii]

A question is not: being asked to say "yes", or to say "no". What if I said: "Nyoes".

What was the question again?

[JDawg]

What was the question again?

The question is "Do you believe in god?".

How can that not be answered "yes" or "no"? Nobody is asking you "Is there a god?" Nobody is asking "Can you prove there is a god?" All anyone is asking is "Do you believe in god?".

Yes or no.

[Vkothii]

No, you mean: "do you believe there's a God up in the sky who looks after us especially the guys in the temples".
And yes, I believe I do believe, that what most people consider is "God", is something I not only am, but must necessarily be.

[JDawg]

No, you mean: "do you believe there's a God up in the sky who looks after us especially the guys in the temples".

Fair enough.

And yes, I believe I do believe, that what most people consider is "God", is something I not only am, but must necessarily be.

But how do you qualify that?

[Vkothii]

But how do you qualify that?Qualify it? You mean expostulate, expound, why is it that I believe I must be God? Not "a god", as such, but what most people identify with, in whatever way they do, as that thing - which they will admit they can't really explain.

But if you've been in the place, you know it's there, type of thing. The "place" is yourself.

[Enmos]

The context of the discussion seems important to me. It seems like you are imagining a conversation with an acquaintance out in the world. But here in a portion of the philosophy forums a simple yes or no could be quite misleading and raising the complexity of the issue fits.

No, I said the answer should be either "yes + [explanation]" or "no".
When answering with the former it's important to start off with actually saying "yes", if you want to prevent confusion that is..

[Enmos]

If they want to hear "yes", or "no", then, as far as I'm concerned, they've already answered their own question.
My response to whether or not I believe in God is usually along the lines I've outlined already.
Or I might turn it back on them and ask them the same question, or: "what do you mean by 'God'? What's that?"

Oh come on, however confusing your concept of God may be, you know you believe in that God.
So the answer should be "yes". Then you can add an explanation, clarifying perhaps what you mean by God.

[Enmos]

A question is not: being asked to say "yes", or to say "no". What if I said: "Nyoes".

What was the question again?

:confused:

Do you believe in God or not ?

[Yorda]

Oh come on, however confusing your concept of God may be, you know you believe in that God.

god is conscoiusness. so i'm an atheist. but i'm also a theist. my concept of god is very complex... god can be almost anything.

i have 2012 posts... i wonder if this is the end

[Vkothii]

however confusing your concept of God may be, you know you believe in that God.I "know" no such thing. I know I'm breathing, though. I know I can see and hear, too.
Whatever it is, there's no "belief requirement". You don't have to convince yourself in the morning that you can open your eyes, do you?

You're asking a question that presumes an answer. You're asking me more or less: "do you believe you can see and hear?", but in your frame, you're asking "do you believe in a Judeao-Christian religious tradition?", or something like that.

[JDawg]

So you don't believe in the Judeao-Christian God. There, I answered it for you.

[draqon]

god is conscoiusness. so i'm an atheist. but i'm also a theist. my concept of god is very complex... god can be almost anything.

i have 2012 posts... i wonder if this is the end

my concept of God agrees with your concept of God, Yorda.

[Vkothii]

So you don't believe in the Judeao-Christian God. There, I answered it for you.Yes, but you did that before you asked it.

Again you presume that it's either: "yes there is a God up there somewhere and I believe 'in' his existence", or it's: "no there is no such thing as the deity in the Judeao-Christian tradition".

In fact, the "answer" is neither of those things.

[Vkothii]

There's the aspect of this that, in asking the question: "do you believe in" something, that isn't the same as being asked: "do you believe that" the thing exists. They aren't the same question at all.

The second is a lot easier, like being asked: "do you believe the sky is blue?". The first is, yep, like being asked: "do you believe in the sky being blue?". It's asking if someone has faith, or expects that the sky, being blue, can be trusted to continue being blue, isn't it?

[Enmos]

I "know" no such thing. I know I'm breathing, though. I know I can see and hear, too.
So you don't know whether or not you believe in God..
Ok, say that.

Whatever it is, there's no "belief requirement". You don't have to convince yourself in the morning that you can open your eyes, do you?
Why are you being difficult about this ?
It's really simple, you either do or don't believe in God. Or you don't know.

You're asking a question that presumes an answer. You're asking me more or less: "do you believe you can see and hear?", but in your frame, you're asking "do you believe in a Judeao-Christian religious tradition?", or something like that.
Do you believe I am wearing socks ?

[Enmos]

There's the aspect of this that, in asking the question: "do you believe in" something, that isn't the same as being asked: "do you believe that" the thing exists. They aren't the same question at all.

The second is a lot easier, like being asked: "do you believe the sky is blue?". The first is, yep, like being asked: "do you believe in the sky being blue?". It's asking if someone has faith, or expects that the sky, being blue, can be trusted to continue being blue, isn't it?

I don't get you. I really don't..

Do you THINK there is a something like a god ?

[ronan]

Vkothii,
maybe you want to say that you cannot answer because there is no way we know we are talking about the same thing when we are using the word "god"
Would you consider yourself an ignostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) ?

[Vkothii]

Why are you being difficult about this ?Why do you think I'm being difficult about "this"? What exactly is "this"?
It's really simple, you either do or don't believe in God. Or you don't know.
If you know the answer, then why do you ask the question?
I don't get you. I really don't..

Do you THINK there is a something like a god ?
What you appear to be saying is: "I fail to understand". Does that ring a bell of any sort?
Yes, I think there must be something like the thing you think you're asking about.
Absolutely.

[Enmos]

Why do you think I'm being difficult about "this"? What exactly is "this"?
Take a look at this thread.
It should never have gone past a few posts.
It did though, because you are being difficult about answering a question that can simply be answer with "yes", "no", or "I don't know".
Seriously.

If you know the answer, then why do you ask the question?
Firstly, I didn't originally ask the question.
And, secondly, you never answered it. So how am I supposed to know.. ?

What you appear to be saying is: "I fail to understand". Does that ring a bell of any sort?
Yes, I fail to understand why you can't give a straight answer.. :shrug:

Yes, I think there must be something like the thing you think you're asking about.
Absolutely.
Thank you. That's a YES.. lol
You see, it isn't that difficult after all ;)

Simply answering the question and explaining it are two completely different things.

[Vkothii]

You see, it isn't that difficult after allSo, now you're happy that I've "answered" the question you have about my belief?

Although if I also say that I don't believe I need to believe in the thing you think you asked me about, except in the same sense that I believe the sky is indeed blue, and the sun gives off light every time it's up in the sky, does that clear it up for you any more?

[Enmos]

So, now you're happy that I've "answered" the question you have about my belief?

Although if I also say that I don't believe I need to believe in the thing you think you asked me about, except in the same sense that I belive the sky is indeed blue, and the sun gives off light, does that clear it up for you any more?

No, you seem to confuse the question with a question about a known fact.
I had no preconceptions about your belief, or whether or not you in fact had a belief to begin with.

Like I said, simply answering the question and explaining it are two completely different things.

[JDawg]

Although if I also say that I don't believe I need to believe in the thing you think you asked me about, except in the same sense that I belive the sky is indeed blue, and the sun gives off light, does that clear it up for you any more?

I know you like to keep taking these little jabs, as if your strange little version of religion should be so obvious to everyone.

See this? -------------------> O

That's your bubble. I'm about to burst it.

It's not obvious to anyone. So no, saying something like "The sky is blue" is NOT an answer to the question. If you want to make your religious beliefs clear, by all means do so, but don't act like we're so far fucking beneath you simply because we asked you a question that didn't meet your arrogant standards.

[Vkothii]

No, you seem to confuse the question with a question about a known fact.They appear to be the same, to me. You think there's a difference? What do you think the difference is?

[JDawg]

It's rare to meet a man who can actually blow smoke up his own ass...

[Enmos]

They appear to be the same, to me. You think there's a difference? What do you think the difference is?

The obvious difference is that I already know that the sky is blue, I don't know whether you believe in whatever version of god.

Edit: Besides, it wasn't my question. It was the persona in the OP that asked the question, and you didn't make it clear that he already knew that you believed in god.
In fact, if he already knew, he's an idiot to ask the question. And in that case the point of this thread is moot.

[Vkothii]

So no, saying something like "The sky is blue" is NOT an answer to the question.But you look like the one with the problem, here.
The sky is blue, though.
And that, is actually as good an answer as any.
Why do you still have a question, I thought I answered it?

[JDawg]

You answered nothing, Vkothii. All you did was argue in circles while I chased you down for a straight answer. I never got one. All I got was "But what is your definition of the word ____?" and things of that nature. As if the thing you believe in is too awesome for words, or something. You didn't make anything clear. At all. Ever.

Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if it's possible for a philosophical nutcase to think themselves into a coma...

[Vkothii]

The obvious difference is that I already know that the sky is blue, I don't know whether you believe in whatever version of god.And the not so obvious difference is that I already know that I'm "god", and I know every other person is too. Anything at all, I guess.
But me, I have a "place"; I think you do too. Call it whatever you like, you're in it.
I don't have a "god-version", because "I am the version".
I'm it, do you not see what I'm saying?

[Vkothii]

As if the thing you believe in is too awesome for words, or somethingSort of, actually words that you can think or speak don't really come into it.

[Enmos]

And the not so obvious difference is that I already know that I'm "god", and I know every other person is too. Anything at all, I guess.
But me, I have a "place"; I think you do too. Call it whatever you like, you're in it.
I don't have a "god-version", because "I am the version".
I'm it, do you not see what I'm saying?

You knew that, not me.

Also, I am now confused as to what the purpose of the thread was. Explain.. ?

[Vkothii]

The purpose was to demonstrate the conflict in understanding between the Eastern paradigm (one which I can say I definitely am in), and the Western one. A failure of understanding.

Although the paradigms of both have counterparts, and there's a spectrum of course. The Yogic tradition didn't evolve for some time, religious historians see the mediating influence of the early Sikh guru line as something that was brought to bear for military and imperial reasons. Be that as it may, the Buddhist "mythology", asceticism. self-sacrifice, etc, more or less embody that side of it, Guatama was a Yogi.
A Western mind sees all the myriad Indian religions, gods, rituals, the caste system (which is also Vedic), and Yoga is something that appears to be a sub-set of those ritual practices. But that's not how an Indian sees it.
A true Hindu not only has a particular religious bent, but recognises all other forms of worship, since in reality, no god cannot be God. The Abrahamic tradition is that there is no other god that can be God.
I wasn't born a "Hindu" either, but that's just a detail.

[Enmos]

The purpose was to demonstrate the conflict in understanding between the Eastern paradigm (one which I can say I definitely am in), and the Western one. A failure of understanding.

Although the paradigms of both have counterparts, and there's a spectrum of course. The Yogic tradition didn't evolve for some time, religious historians see the mediating influence of the early Sikh guru line as something that was brought to bear for military and imperial reasons. Be that as it may, the Buddhist "mythology", asceticism. self-sacrifice, etc, more or less embody that side of it, Guatama was a Yogi.
A Western mind sees all the myriad Indian religions, gods, rituals, the caste system (which is also Vedic), and Yoga is something that appears to be a sub-set of those ritual practices. But that's not how an Indian sees it.
A true Hindu not only has a particular religious bent, but recognises all other forms of worship, since in reality, no god cannot be God. The Abrahamic tradition is that there is no other god that can be God.
I wasn't born a "Hindu" either, but that's just a detail.

Ok well, I wasn't focusing on what your belief was in my posts because I was under the impression that the thread was about the question being asked and the (lack of an) answer to it.
But I do understand your belief.

In your case you could have answered any one of the answers, "yes" and "no". An then offer an explanation.
I don't really see the problem here.

[Vkothii]

The title didn't give the game away?

You had the impression of evasive answers, of your question not being answered in a straightforward way?

But you understand why the Yogi's POV, when asked such a question, is: "why, or are they asking if I believe in the air I'm breathing?"; it's a strange thing to ask someone. Hence the apparent side-stepping.

[Enmos]

The title didn't give the game away?
lol
Well, that's the conclusion the evasive person reached, isn't it ?
It only shows that he didn't realize he was being evasive.. or is lying.

You had the impression of evasive answers, of your question not being answered in a straightforward way?
It wasn't exactly my question, but yes.
As long as I don't actually ask you about it, you can safely assume I don't give a rats ass about your beliefs. (<- this is meant in general)

But you understand why the Yogi's POV, when asked such a question, is: "why, or are they asking if I believe in the air I'm breathing?"; it's a strange thing to ask someone. Hence the apparent side-stepping.
No, I don't understand that.
If not intentionally evasive, it's at the very least confusing and not helping the person that posed the question at all.

[Vkothii]

it's at the very least confusing and not helping the person that posed the question at all.That could be because the expectation the person asking the question has, goes straight past the answer.
Or, there is no answer I can give, that anyone with that expectation asking such a question, would not think was evasive, confusing, a "non-answer", etc.

But then, I think the question itself is evasive, confusing, a "non-question".
For example:
as if your strange little version of religion should be so obvious to everyone.

See this? -------------------> OThis is a common kind of reaction a questioner has when they believe the person is evading their question.
As you can see, there's already an assumption being made: that I "have" a religion. I do not, but then, I'm not areligious as such, more a fence-sitter.

The bumper sticker version of an answer to one's belief "in" God is then: I don't need to (because I am).

Which is in fact, the case for every one of us.

[JDawg]

Which is in fact, the case for every one of us.

Actually, it's not.

Unless you feel like showing us some proof, don't put your wacky acid dreams on me, pal.

[Vkothii]

Well, you say that, but I don't need to 'show' you a thing.
Since you're already you, I know you already know what I do.

Put it this way, since I know there is no possibility of being able to prove to any other sentient being, that I am aware of myself, only of them and the external world, and only in their and the world's terminology, if you see what I mean.

I cannot, in fact prove a single solitary thing to you or anyone else - except to some degree of "certainty", whatever that might be seen to be at the time, by myself or anyone else. I can only prove stuff to myself - with my sense of sight, sound, touch, etc.

[Enmos]

Well, you say that, but I don't need to 'show' you a thing.
Since you're already you, I know you already know what I do.

Put it this way, since I know there is no possibility of being able to prove to any other sentient being, that I am aware of myself, only of them and the external world, and only in their and the world's terminology, if you see what I mean.

I cannot, in fact prove a single solitary thing to you or anyone else - except to some degree of "certainty", whatever that might be seen to be at the time, by myself or anyone else. I can only prove stuff to myself - with my sense of sight, sound, touch, etc.

But you can describe to us how you proved it to yourself using sight, sound, touch, etc.

[Enmos]

That could be because the expectation the person asking the question has, goes straight past the answer.
Or, there is no answer I can give, that anyone with that expectation asking such a question, would not think was evasive, confusing, a "non-answer", etc.

There is no expectation when I ask someone whether or not they believe in a god.
I am well aware of the different beliefs people have.
In fact, I leave open the possibility that they believe in something I never considered or heard of before.
Still, without explanation, a simple "yes" or "no" is possible.
Of course this leaves the questioner wondering what exactly it is the other person believes in, but that is a separate matter.

[Vkothii]

I'm not sure, are you asking me for an explanation of my "proof" of the existence of "God"?
In English (not Sanskrit)?.. :)

[Enmos]

I'm not sure, are you asking me for an explanation of my "proof" of the existence of "God"?
In English (not Sanskrit)?.. :)

Well you basically said that you can only prove it to yourself, through your perceptions.
So I'm asking you to tell us the story :)

[Vkothii]

But I can't, you see. The "story" is like listening to a big gong that was struck a long time ago, and it sounds very slowly (but you hear it both once and all at once, each breath is also a reverberation), but you can tune in to it. There are other aspects, or voices if you will. But one awareness of all of the (sensory) aspects - the inner senses, not the inner voice we imagine is our "mind".

..."tune into", is the bit you need to be reminded how to do.
That, in the East, involves finding someone who knows about such things. There's all the devotee/master thing, which I see reflected in the West as priests, bishops, popes, etc. It's all window-dressing really.

[Enmos]

But I can't, you see. The "story" is like listening to a big gong that was struck a long time ago, and it sounds very slowly (but you hear it both once and all at once, each breath is also a reverberation), but you can tune in to it. There are other aspects, or voices if you will. But one awareness of all of the (sensory) aspects - the inner senses, not the inner voice we imagine is our "mind".

But you said: I can only prove stuff to myself - with my sense of sight, sound, touch, etc.

Can't you explain what you saw, heard and felt ? At least to some degree ?

[Vkothii]

You would find more eloquent descriptions elsewhere. I believe the gospel accounts say something about it - the "well of life" has a direct Eastern connection to a certain inner sensory experience, or one of the instruments you get to hear, as it were.

Try Gibran, or Kabir, you'll get the idea.

I suppose I could say it's like the way you can hear your own breathing - if you concentrate, the sound itself relaxes, or entrains your mind, your thoughts can go quite calm. It takes a bit of practising, but you can acheive much the same kind of result staring at a candle, or the smoke from an incense stick, say, or by chanting (singing). Repetitive or iterative action.

What I'm talking about, and Kabir is, is something you hear that isn't because you're "making" a noise. It can help you to focus though. Sometimes when I'm playing, and concentrating it gets very clear (the sound, not the external stuff).

P.S. talking about one's personal experience, is "not done", in the ascetic paradigm. However talking about what it's like, or from an "unselfish" POV, is ok. (I'm not living in a cave, btw.)

[Vkothii]

To me, the difference in understanding, or the failure of East and West to resonate, as it were, is the perception, or the conception of individuality.
One has a personal, selfish God who demands the following only of them, the other is a "personal god", who follows God by allowing that all gods can be followed.

A Western mind sees an Indian playing on a sitar as perhaps an accomplished musician, worthy of their art, a person who has spent long hours of practical application of it, and so many people will attend performances, perhaps a rich man or a king will take them into their court or palace.

The Eastern mind sees a servant who has realised that they must adopt (understand, or surrender their intellect and creativity to, in some sense) certain external artifices - the playing of, possibly details of the making of, an instrument - in order to convey as faithfully as they might, the experience their God has seen fit to allow them to have, and the breath they draw in order to perform this, their humble duty.

[Simon Anders]

To me, the difference in understanding, or the failure of East and West to resonate, as it were, is the perception, or the conception of individuality.
One has a personal, selfish God who demands the following only of them, the other is a "personal god", who follows God by allowing that all gods can be followed.

A Western mind sees an Indian playing on a sitar as perhaps an accomplished musician, worthy of their art, a person who has spent long hours of practical application of it, and so many people will attend performances, perhaps a rich man or a king will take them into their court or palace.

The Eastern mind sees a servant who has realised that they must adopt (understand, or surrender their intellect and creativity to, in some sense) certain external artifices - the playing of, possibly details of the making of, an instrument - in order to convey as faithfully as they might, the experience their God has seen fit to allow them to have, and the breath they draw in order to perform this, their humble duty.And both seem rather incomplete to me. Individualism tends to stifly awareness of connection and at+hand intimacy. It tries to get us to see ourselves as immaculate monads now and then dipping in to connection with others. The Eastern methods and outlook seems to me to incorporate a shame barrier since it sees much of the self as antithetical to connection. Thus one must be humble and often restrained - with a wide range of direct and less explicit interpetations of this restraint. Distrust of connection vs. distrust of self. Each thinking that some of the urges and feelings of the self are a detriment and stifling them.

[Randwolf]

And both seem rather incomplete to me.


What is your take on this? You are pantheist, right?


Individualism tends to stifly awareness of connection and at+hand intimacy.


What?


It tries to get us to see ourselves as immaculate monads now and then dipping in to connection with others. The Eastern methods and outlook seems to me to incorporate a shame barrier since it sees much of the self as antithetical to connection. Thus one must be humble and often restrained - with a wide range of direct and less explicit interpetations of this restraint. Distrust of connection vs. distrust of self. Each thinking that some of the urges and feelings of the self are a detriment and stifling them.

Your point? A "shame barrier"? Humble, if equal to "respect" is a good thing. What were you referring to here?

[Simon Anders]

What is your take on this? You are pantheist, right?Pagan might be a better description, though, yes, pantheist. Could you be more specific in your question.

What?I think a Western ideas can lead to a sense of being disconnected, like a monad that occasionally bumps into other monads, like pool balls. Disconnection is seen as primary, people imagine themselves as Newtonian separate diconnected objects that can engage with others, but the resting state is separate. Once one has such a belief one tends to experience things this way and one gets invested in not noticing the connections that are present much more of the time.

Your point? A "shame barrier"? Humble, if equal to "respect" is a good thing. What were you referring to here? I don't see respect and humility as synonyms. In any case I don't use them this way nor have I encountered them used this way. But we can figure out how we each use these words and work from there.

Shame barrier: what I meant was that people get trained to not do or say certain things or express themselves strongly because it would be seen as individualistic. Some people would say they have too much ego, a term that gets tossed around in Western contexts that focus on Eastern ideas, but a similar criticism can be found in the East.

If one goes past this barrier one feels shame. One is considered selfish, or too full of oneself or trying to get too much attention. Rather than, for example, simply expressing enthusiasm or desire.

I think that kind of judgment can be common in Eastern cultures. (of course this is a generalization, but I am following a discussion that is extremely general)

Shame is a reaction to other people's criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame *oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self-*respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one. Personal desires are sunk in the collective expectation. Those who fail will often turn their aggression against themselves instead of using violence against others. By punishing themselves they maintain their self-*respect before others, for shame cannot be relieved, as guilt can be, by confession and atonement. Shame is removed and honor restored only when a person does what the society expects of him or her in the situation, including committing suicide if necessary. (Hiebert 1985, 212)

Perhaps what I bolded is what you meant. In any case, I see the shame as coming from a sense of interconnection. One feels it in relation to others and their expectations. One is a part of the group that has strayed.

Guilt based societies the control is more individual. "I have been a bad boy." Again, generalizations, but I think there is a tendency in the East to view tendencies toward individualism as a threat to the group identity. And in the West tendencies to see awareness of interconnection as a threat to the self.

I think both of these judgments are limited, either or judgments that I have sympathy for - I can understand how they came up and the concerns which I respect there - but I do not want to tolerate either one.

[Vkothii]

people get trained to not do or say certain things or express themselves strongly because it would be seen as individualistic. Some people would say they have too much ego, a term that gets tossed around in Western contexts that focus on Eastern ideas, but a similar criticism can be found in the East.
That looks a bit like a Western misconception of the kinds of social pressures in Eastern societies. I'd guess they aren't all that different to the West.
If one goes past this barrier one feels shame. One is considered selfish, or too full of oneself or trying to get too much attention. Rather than, for example, simply expressing enthusiasm or desire.
Again, there is a difference between the "ideal" Western sense of self, and the Eastern one. Of course there are "selfish" and materialistic Eastern people, and there are unselfish, "non-materialistic" Western people. I'm talking about the different views of materialism and self-ism.

The "civilised" notion of self, centres on a selfish, particular God, to whom one must surrender notions of individual gain and profit.
The Eastern notion is of an unselfish God, who dwells in all things, and so surrender to a "god", is therefore to God, who does not choose any particular form.

[Simon Anders]

That looks a bit like a Western misconception of the kinds of social pressures in Eastern societies. I'd guess they aren't all that different to the West.Well, it fits my experience in the East, as a broad generality. Certainly there are individuals who act very much in their self-interests. But their personality tends to be under much more social pressure to be restrained, not to stick out. In a lived way individualism is taboo in comparison.
Again, there is a difference between the "ideal" Western sense of self, and the Eastern one. Of course there are "selfish" and materialistic Eastern people, and there are unselfish, "non-materialistic" Western people. I'm talking about the different views of materialism and self-ism.

Again, it is not so much about long term consequences. I am talking about modes of being in the world, in the moment. Certainly, I noticed wildly successful and hideously selfish business people in the East, perhaps on equal levels. But as far as modes of being the shame restrictions around identity these often kept these selfish selves anonymous by Western standards.

The "civilised" notion of self, centres on a selfish, particular God, to whom one must surrender notions of individual gain and profit.
The Eastern notion is of an unselfish God, who dwells in all things, and so surrender to a "god", is therefore to God, who does not choose any particular form.I wonder how much this is a Western idealized view of Eastern believers. Mystic christians and Jews and Sufis, etc. have often described God as rather beyond personality and wants and pettiness and specificity. I think we in the West project the mystical writings of the mystics of the East onto the public at large. I do think there is something to your distinction here, but I think the average believer in the East often has very specific images of the form of their deity.

[Vkothii]

I think the average believer in the East often has very specific images of the form of their deity.I haven't met a whole lot of Indian people, but I have known people from a region with a long religious (Sikh guru) history. I believe I have met at least one person who appeared to be "enlightened".

Any follower or devotee of a deity in that part of the world sees the external ritualism and doctrine as a necessary, but not all-encompassing activity. Some no doubt become fanatical and so on, but that isn't supposed to be the idea. To my way of thinking, the Sikh tradition embodies much of the Vedic "self-knowledge" paradigm.
Alongside the notions of asceticism and selflessness are for example those of the strictly organised caste system - something the Aryans decided to retain and enshrine, as it were, in doctrine. It's not all beer and skittles on the path to self-realisation; or it's available to only the "pure" of mind and heart, which, if you happen to have been born into the wrong caste, just doesn't apply - you'll have to wait for another human body in a future reincarnation, you see.

[Simon Anders]

I have little experience with the Sikh tradition. I've met one teacher and meditated with her and she wanted me to join her group and wait for the guru with her and the others. I declined. I have met a number of gurus from other traditions and masters, etc. But the people I related to here were either westerners who were staying at ashrams etc. monks or their counterparts and other very serious devotees/students. Then there were the average everyday followers, who are the counterparts to church/synagogueetc. goers in the West. To them the guru seemed to me to be very much like the Pope.

[Vkothii]

Well, there it is. Indian, or say Sikh devotees of some guru, or possibly they're devotees of some following whose "master" died a long time ago (one of the perks of reincarnation), don't see a Pope-like figure.

A guru isn't a "master", like a king is. No, a true guru is a teacher, again someone who is doing their humble duty. Any aggrandisement or elevation of such a person by their devotees is accepted, of course, but the teacher never accepts that they are any such thing as their devotees insist they are, they're always only striving to bring understanding, not to enrich themselves (at least, that's the idea, there are a few gurus who obviously spotted an opportunity, and moved to the West to do just that).

[Simon Anders]

Well, there it is. Indian, or say Sikh devotees of some guru, or possibly they're devotees of some following whose "master" died a long time ago (one of the perks of reincarnation), don't see a Pope-like figure.

A guru isn't a "master", like a king is. No, a true guru is a teacher, again someone who is doing their humble duty. Any aggrandisement or elevation of such a person by their devotees is accepted, of course, but the teacher never accepts that they are any such thing as their devotees insist they are, they're always only striving to bring understanding, not to enrich themselves (at least, that's the idea, there are a few gurus who obviously spotted an opportunity, and moved to the West to do just that).
You are quoting rhetoric. But I noticed gurus allowed their photographs to be sold knowing that people would worship them. Me, if I wanted to cut into the idea of my perfection, I would quietly end this practice. This is but one example amongst many. Every guru I encountered gave lectures on scripture, led workshops in meditation, told people what to do for their evolutionary betterment, etc. They also tended to allow people to come up and bow down to them.

I know, to bow down to the universal guru inside them. To use them as a symbol. I find the distinction meaningless. It may be of some use for the guru, but in practice and in the minds of followers, I really think there is little.

[Vkothii]

I find the distinction meaningless. You mean, you can see a distinction, but you believe there really isn't one?

So, devotees bowing down, or demonstrating their "devotion", is no different to what, exactly? To kissing the papal ring, or bowing to "royalty"?
It's called "obeisance" btw.

[Simon Anders]

You mean, you can see a distinction, but you believe there really isn't one? For most I don't think there is one.

So, devotees bowing down, or demonstrating their "devotion", is no different to what, exactly? To kissing the papal ring, or bowing to "royalty".
It's called "obeisance" btw. Basically from either. Yes, the hoping to be touched or to touch the guru/pope. The bowing down to the superior figure. I think it comes down to something fundamentally the same. An internal feudalism/outward feudalism. Even the Western devotees enjoy denying them selves.

I am not sympathetic to the guru system.

[Vkothii]

I am not sympathetic to the guru system.Well, I'm quite sure the "guru system" isn't concerned in the least about your grasp of it.

It's a path. Buddha didn't become a follower of any guru, but he did join a group of "holy men".
The tradition back in those days was that, once a man had done his bit, but was too old to have more children or marry more wives or whatever, he would put aside worldly affairs and opt for an ascetic existence, in which such imponderables as the nature of that existence, the relationship one has with God or that everyone and everything has. A "spiritual" path, as the last step in fulfilment of one's purpose in life, type of thing. This is presumably what led to the Sikh, and other "guru" traditions.

[Simon Anders]

Well, I'm quite sure the "guru system" isn't concerned in the least about your grasp of it. I grasp it enough to know they'd think this little shot at me was not the best use of your time.

It's a path. Buddha didn't become a follower of any guru, but he did join a group of "holy men".And now we are talking about the Buddha...?

The tradition back in those days was that, once a man had done his bit, but was too old to have more children or marry more wives or whatever, he would put aside worldly affairs and opt for an ascetic existence, in which such imponderables as the nature of that existence, the relationship one has with God or that everyone and everything has. A "spiritual" path, as the last step in fulfilment of one's purpose in life, type of thing. This is presumably what led to the Sikh, and other "guru" traditions.

I think this is wrong in terms of origins, but I am no expert. It also seems beside the point. It is not the experience of most Easterners, nor is it what is happening in most ashrams. Perhaps the Sikh tradition is different. And for those outside the center of meditation and presence of the guru it is also not relevent.

The first part of your response makes me think I have pissed off someone who is a believer or puts these traditions on a pedestal. I am not seeking to change someone's choice of lifepath and I figure on some level participation in this discussion will be taken as that.

I'm out.

[Vkothii]

And there's goes another somewhat nonplussed, confused, and misconception burdened "individual".
A fine example of how preconceptions and misinterpretations of meaning and intent (as in, posting words in a language), are the mainstay of most Western "individuals", who generally have little real idea, or bother to concern themselves with, what an individual might be.

Rather, the Western "individual" perceives ideas as "mine", they proclaim ownership of these things, and any ideas that might then appear to conflict with "their" ideas, are obviously a challenge of some sort. The Western "struggle" to find "meaning", in conflict of their own poorly-conceived notions with equally poorly-conceived notions of other "individuals". What a foolish person.

What the hell did I say?