A failure of understanding

[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?