Changing tides of religion – Vedic perspective

Wisdom seeker

hence love without knowledge is also equally dangerous

and contemporary views of moral and immoral are a healthy alternative (what is to stop them also becoming "traditional" after some time also?)

actually the root cause of prostitution, etc is one's inability to be celibate or remain within sexual relationships that are socially amiable - and the root cause of either two scenarios is the inability to control one' s mind

only if its naturally inevitable that a particular person cannot practice celibacy

so if the next door neighbor decides to go with the flow of your girlfriend/wife, that's ok?
(after all, its not appropriate that he represses himself in any way)

hence the broader picture of all urges - and not just celibacy - is that urges must be dovetailed to something agreeable to the greater amiability - for instance the desire for sex life is dovetailed through marriage, which has qualities of responsibility and chastity and clear boundaries of what is acceptable or unacceptable - of course this involves an element of repression, but it is hoped that through entering a higher vale of things (steady relationship, stable social environment etc) that such repressions become tolerable, and in fact even welcome and willing austerities to be performed in the pursuit of higher aims - IOW the happiness one can attain from a steady relationship is a greater gain than the temporary satisfaction of one's genitals.

To argue that repression is to be avoided at all costs and that we should all be free to do what we, while a utopian ideal, it is commonly understood through all philosophical systems to be the perfect recipe for selfishness and social madness in human society.

Frankly, the material world is the medium of "force" and not "love" - and to deny that in an immature stage of spiritual development is simply to invite a lower grade of material existence

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Grantywanty


I don't mean to sound offensive, but do you smoke pot regularly?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What makes you ask that question?
I guess my first reaction is that this question is a facile way of trying to dismiss me or my ideas without really taking responsibility for what you are doing and perhaps what you are feeling, but I can't be sure.
Can you try to put it in statement form.
Thanks.

 

your post comes across as being highly emotionally surcharged in the present with an unconsciousness of the past and future (ie - stoned)

There are very good reasons why there are laws that prohibit stoned people from driving vehicles and the same principle holds true when discussing philosophy

 

Gee, that's twice you've said I was stoned. Fairly rude. Actually I just disagree with you. You also seem to be confused about what a stoned person acts like. I don't get stoned, but I have seen enough people who were stoned to know they tend to be milder, calmer and smiley.

I'll take this as you taking an easy way out of a discussion, yet again about things you have little experience of.

 

the discussion of philosophy with out logic makes for only absurdity

 

What does 'progress' mean then, according to you?

 

moving towards liberation from the material situation (ie the corporeal self) , as opposed to seeking a more amiable material refinement for the corporeal self (which still involves contingent aspects of suffering due tot he nature of having a material body - IOW even the healthy, wealthy and wise get sick, diseased and eventually die)

 

It certainly seems like periods of right brain dominance might be a good thing, otherwise you are simply rehashing the dead metaphors in language and other cultural biases. I don't think Marijuana use would be of much help, however. Admittedly this is anectdotal and non-participatory evidence but the philosophical discussions by stoned people I've heard were riddled with cliches. They were definitely not challenging because their were holistic or new concepts. They were challenging because they were boring.

 

What makes you think that there is some other "situation"?

 

literally, there are whole books written on the subject (both in religion and philosophy)

perhaps I could give a more succinct answer is you could explain why you think there isn't

 

I can't disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place. You first.

 

as I mentioned, there are entire books written on it
you seem to have a sturdy foundation (ie making a positive claim for something not existing), so rather than have me retype books on the subject you can just indicate by what foundation you are holding

For instance is your issue more epistemological?
(I don't see it therefore it doesn't exist)

Is it an issue of logic?
(there is no logical reason for it to exist)

 

We might differ in what mean is "character".
I do think that technological advancement can be very dangerous to a person's character. Technological advancement can easily overwhelm and give the person using the technology a sense of safety - but if the person doesn't actually understand the technology and isn't disiciplined in using it, using that technology gives rise to a sense of false safety, and the laziness and apathy that follow from it.

I think people often overestimate how well they can control technology; it happens that all too easily, the technology controls them, in subtle and blatant ways.
When we act, which includes using technology, we make karma - and our future is then shaped by that karma. Sometimes, the future of using technology are obesity, type II diabetes and an attention span of 5 seconds.

 

The fact that entire books have been written on it doesn't mean anything.

I do not make positive claims. The default position is: nothing exists until proven otherwise, only then do the people that say that something doesn't exist have the burden of proof.

 

Poverty, illness and social exclusion are common today still as they were throughout history; only the forms have changed a bit. So for the poor, ill, excluded -and not rarely, poverty, illness and exclusion come together in one person at the same time- those various upadharmas you mention would still all seem valid, their concepts of liberation are still relevant.

However, and this is a specific of modern times: People -even poor people- get some education on the various religions. Poverty, illness, social exclusion and education, however, make for a dangerous mixture. A mixture that seems to be quite a novel phenomenon in history.

Which can give rise to another kind of suffering - the suffering of trying to figure out which religion is the right one, but not having the means to do so. For example, one may be able to go the library, but be unable to buy the books for prolonged study or visit temples and teachers because of poverty. Having a criminal record or otherwise blemished reputation, the person possibly won't be accepted by established religious communities. Being confined to a home due to illness, the person has a lot of time, but little opportunity to investigate the variety of religions that they have learned about in the course of their education.


What do you suggest in such situations?
Granted, possibly not all that many people are facing such a predicament, but there are such people, and modern society seems to be a fertile breeding ground for them.

I think this is a bit simplistic.
I can't speak so much for other religions than Christianity and Buddhism - but both do have a broader understanding of what makes for evil than just in relation to the specific historical situation where their leaders were persecuted. Buddhism much more so than Christianity - Buddhism with its teachings on karma, dependent co-arising, the three poisons. As far as I know Buddhism, it focuses on all the kinds of suffering I can think of, from blatant to subtle.

 

except that the topic in question has been thoroughly discussed and analyzed

yes you did
eg
I can't disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place.

hence my inquiry whether you see problems on an epistemological level or a logical one