What is the starting point?

[wynn]

I don't really know what would drive you to feel that way,

When I think of God, or any religious activity, I usually have images and voices of religious people present in my mind as well. If, for example, I think of a picture of K., in my mind, it will usually be accompanied by the image or voice of some particular devotee. Telling me how I have "no faith", how it is "all in my mind" and how they are "good and kind people" and that I have a "difficult psychology" and that "maybe I should look elsewhere, in some other religion". Or simply the angry looks I got from the devotees come into my mind.
The two seem inseparable, and this makes it all seem so hopeless.

In the presence of the devotees, be it in person or in my mind, I would not show (or even just internally entertain) any favorable emotion or stance toward God or KC. It simply does not feel safe to do so.
I would not bow to the altar with them around. I put in a lot of effort to make sure nobody sees I have teary eyes during kirtan. And so on.

A while back, I took to wearng my japa bag when on the bus or walk through town, and I chant. But soon the enthusiasm dissipated as I thought that I might meet a devotee in town, I sometimes see some. And that they would probably give me a hard time if I stopped to talk to them, and if I wouldn't, they'd take offence and I'd go down as an offender.

And since this is so lasting, so pervasive, I wonder whether perhaps there is more to it, whether I should leave altogether.

 

[wynn]

so whats an example of something you already know?

German, for example.
Within a particular field of knowledge, there can be proper knowledge that satisfies both criteria, and there are people who have such knowledge. Because each field usually specifies both criteria.

However, there is the question whether such an approach with fields of knowledge is justified when it comes to theistic knowledge.

Namely, given that theistic knowledge is so fundamental, so all-encompassing, so all-pervasive, so all-important, is it justified to see it in the same terms as other, lesser kinds of knowledge?

 

[wynn]

I'd still like to hear what you have to say to the above two posts.

 

[iceaura]

Namely, given that theistic knowledge is so fundamental, so all-encompassing, so all-pervasive, so all-important, is it justified to see it in the same terms as other, lesser kinds of knowledge?

Given an absurdity, almost any conclusion can be drawn.

In the real world, an example of "theistic knowledge" would be available for correcting errors in justification, etc, before such questions would be approached.

 

[lightgigantic]

Given an absurdity, almost any conclusion can be drawn.

In the real world, an example of "theistic knowledge" would be available for correcting errors in justification, etc, before such questions would be approached.

animosity towards the very means of approaching issues of correction is sufficient to render any knowable claim absurd
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

German, for example.
Within a particular field of knowledge, there can be proper knowledge that satisfies both criteria, and there are people who have such knowledge. Because each field usually specifies both criteria.

However, there is the question whether such an approach with fields of knowledge is justified when it comes to theistic knowledge.

Namely, given that theistic knowledge is so fundamental, so all-encompassing, so all-pervasive, so all-important, is it justified to see it in the same terms as other, lesser kinds of knowledge?

so do you see German as the mature consequence of application or something that satisfied the two points from the moment of approach?

When I think of God, or any religious activity, I usually have images and voices of religious people present in my mind as well. If, for example, I think of a picture of K., in my mind, it will usually be accompanied by the image or voice of some particular devotee. Telling me how I have "no faith", how it is "all in my mind" and how they are "good and kind people" and that I have a "difficult psychology" and that "maybe I should look elsewhere, in some other religion". Or simply the angry looks I got from the devotees come into my mind.
The two seem inseparable, and this makes it all seem so hopeless.

In the presence of the devotees, be it in person or in my mind, I would not show (or even just internally entertain) any favorable emotion or stance toward God or KC. It simply does not feel safe to do so.
I would not bow to the altar with them around. I put in a lot of effort to make sure nobody sees I have teary eyes during kirtan. And so on.

A while back, I took to wearng my japa bag when on the bus or walk through town, and I chant. But soon the enthusiasm dissipated as I thought that I might meet a devotee in town, I sometimes see some. And that they would probably give me a hard time if I stopped to talk to them, and if I wouldn't, they'd take offence and I'd go down as an offender.

And since this is so lasting, so pervasive, I wonder whether perhaps there is more to it, whether I should leave altogether.

I guess we have a need for enthusiasm in whatever we do, and if the mind becomes heavy with negative impressions or anticipating worst case scenarios this enthusiasm can easily be doused.

 

[iceaura]

animosity towards the very means of approaching issues of correction is sufficient to render any knowable claim absurd

? And you accuse me of attempting parody of your posts.

Has anyone been compiling those things? It didn't occur to me until too late.

Maybe, as a native speaker, I can help: Did you mean to say "The means of approaching issues of animosity is sufficient to render any very absurd claim knowable"? Or perhaps: "The approaching of issues of animosity is means to render any very absurd claim sufficient" ?

 

[lightgigantic]

? And you accuse me of attempting parody of your posts.

Has anyone been compiling those things? It didn't occur to me until too late.

Maybe, as a native speaker, I can help: Did you mean to say "The means of approaching issues of animosity is sufficient to render any very absurd claim knowable"? Or perhaps: "The approaching of issues of animosity is means to render any very absurd claim sufficient" ?

thanks for illustrating how animosity can render a claim absurd

 

[wynn]

so do you see German as the mature consequence of application or something that satisfied the two points from the moment of approach?

The former.

But my question remains: Given that theistic knowledge is so fundamental, so all-encompassing, so all-pervasive, so all-important, is it justified to see it in the same terms as other, lesser kinds of knowledge?

I guess we have a need for enthusiasm in whatever we do, and if the mind becomes heavy with negative impressions or anticipating worst case scenarios this enthusiasm can easily be doused.

I suppose so.

Do you think I am aiming too high and should instead try to settle for a lesser religious philosophy?

 

[lightgigantic]

The former.

But my question remains: Given that theistic knowledge is so fundamental, so all-encompassing, so all-pervasive, so all-important, is it justified to see it in the same terms as other, lesser kinds of knowledge?

Basically the only distinction is that theistic knowledge has recourse to an descending (as opposed to ascending ) method ... even though most people take recourse to descending models in order to learn something. IOW even though you could have traveled to Germany and learned the language through your own endeavor, you probably learnt it through someone who already knew it and approached them through a student-teacher relationship.

I suppose so.

Do you think I am aiming too high and should instead try to settle for a lesser religious philosophy?

I think you have very real social needs yet simultaneously take shelter of an outlook that makes all social needs unnecessary (hence a conflict ensues which winds up in a backlog of negative impressions)

 

[wynn]

Basically the only distinction is that theistic knowledge has recourse to an descending (as opposed to ascending ) method ...

But for me, here enters the question of the different religious traditions. Which one is right?

- I suppose this is the fear of a failed Christian speaking, but this fear doesn't just go away.

I am still afraid that God may be (what we would usually call) insane, and that everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as one's Lord and Savior will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption. Of course, there is the problem of which of the about 30,000 Christian schools to trust, as each one of them claims it is the one and only right one and all others are false. This is a situation that seems completely irrational from the onset - yet millions of people believe it is right this way.

I am still afraid that the only way to learn the truth about God is to give in to one's own worst fear and panic - which is basically what most Christians seem to endorse, even though they don't call it that way.

And for some people, giving in to one's own worst fear and panic simply does not make for a tolerable life, at least not for any prolonged period of time. If at that, one is a vegetarian, doesn't take intoxicants and so on, the absurdity of Christian claims becomes even more unbearable.

I am not surprised that in the context of such Christian doctrines, there arose an anti-Abrahamic atheism that focuses on one's own efforts to learn the truth about God, an ascending approach to God. Because given the demands of Christians, what else is one supposed to do, other than go insane?

even though most people take recourse to descending models in order to learn something. IOW even though you could have traveled to Germany and learned the language through your own endeavor, you probably learnt it through someone who already knew it and approached them through a student-teacher relationship.

Certainly. In fact, it's probably insufficient in any endeavor to try to learn something entirely by one's own effort - even just reading a book means one is already enlisting someone else's authority.

I think you have very real social needs yet simultaneously take shelter of an outlook that makes all social needs unnecessary (hence a conflict ensues which winds up in a backlog of negative impressions)

I am not sure I understand?

Do you mean that my ascending approach to God is that outlook that makes all social needs seem unnecessary?

Because this is not how I see it at all. It has been my experience with almost all theists of all denominations that I have met, that I am completely irrelevant, that I might as well go to a corner and die of shame. The one thing they all have been conveying me is that I do not deserve to have my social needs fulfilled, that I am too bad a person for that, that I should not have social needs at all, and that humility would be that I just finally shut the hell up. 9 of 10 advices have been to that effect.

The idea they seem to want me to finally get is that I should, in silence somewhere apart from all people, somehow advance enough to become suitable for society, and that until I become thus advanced, I should stay away from people.

What am I supposed to do? How am I to pursue the associacion of people who want me to stay away to begin with?

 

[lightgigantic]

But for me, here enters the question of the different religious traditions. Which one is right?

- I suppose this is the fear of a failed Christian speaking, but this fear doesn't just go away.

I am still afraid that God may be (what we would usually call) insane, and that everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as one's Lord and Savior will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption. Of course, there is the problem of which of the about 30,000 Christian schools to trust, as each one of them claims it is the one and only right one and all others are false. This is a situation that seems completely irrational from the onset - yet millions of people believe it is right this way.

I am still afraid that the only way to learn the truth about God is to give in to one's own worst fear and panic - which is basically what most Christians seem to endorse, even though they don't call it that way.

And for some people, giving in to one's own worst fear and panic simply does not make for a tolerable life, at least not for any prolonged period of time. If at that, one is a vegetarian, doesn't take intoxicants and so on, the absurdity of Christian claims becomes even more unbearable.

I am not surprised that in the context of such Christian doctrines, there arose an anti-Abrahamic atheism that focuses on one's own efforts to learn the truth about God, an ascending approach to God. Because given the demands of Christians, what else is one supposed to do, other than go insane?

It seems to work better for me by seeing to what degree they are (partially) right as opposed to exclusively right.

I am not sure I understand?

Do you mean that my ascending approach to God is that outlook that makes all social needs seem unnecessary?

Because this is not how I see it at all. It has been my experience with almost all theists of all denominations that I have met, that I am completely irrelevant, that I might as well go to a corner and die of shame. The one thing they all have been conveying me is that I do not deserve to have my social needs fulfilled, that I am too bad a person for that, that I should not have social needs at all, and that humility would be that I just finally shut the hell up. 9 of 10 advices have been to that effect.

The idea they seem to want me to finally get is that I should, in silence somewhere apart from all people, somehow advance enough to become suitable for society, and that until I become thus advanced, I should stay away from people.

What am I supposed to do? How am I to pursue the associacion of people who want me to stay away to begin with?

I think you have a heightened sensitivity to social abrasiveness which tends to be par for the course of life .... which means the issues you are talking about probably find expression outside of the context of religiosity and their attributed communities

 

[wynn]

It seems to work better for me by seeing to what degree they are (partially) right as opposed to exclusively right.

You seem very confident that your selectiveness is justified.
I think I've asked you about this before - how you came to have such confidence. In my experience, such confidence is not a given, and it doesn't seem possible (what to speak of easy) to come by.

I think you have a heightened sensitivity to social abrasiveness

I have been told so by others as well.

which tends to be par for the course of life .... which means the issues you are talking about probably find expression outside of the context of religiosity and their attributed communities

I am not sure whether that "social abrasiveness" is to be valued the same way in the context of religiosity and their attributed communities as outside of them.

Seeing religious people as "just people" seems rather bold, and possibly offensive, don't you think?

I don't think many religious people would be happy to be considered "just people", especially not in a religious setting. Which would then have negative consequences for me, if I considered them to be "just people".

 

[lightgigantic]

You seem very confident that your selectiveness is justified.

similarly another may be very confident about the selectiveness of their (necessarily exclusive) POV

I think I've asked you about this before - how you came to have such confidence. In my experience, such confidence is not a given, and it doesn't seem possible (what to speak of easy) to come by.

A general principle (even of physics) is that a view becomes more elegant according to the variety it can encapsulate. ("the one that describes the many")

I am not sure whether that "social abrasiveness" is to be valued the same way in the context of religiosity and their attributed communities as outside of them.

Seeing religious people as "just people" seems rather bold, and possibly offensive, don't you think?

on the contrary, seeing any sort of person as something other than a person is offensive ... or rather, narrow. I mean if one is draws up the extent of another's "personhood" solely based on the degree that their needs, interests and concerns are in complete accordance with one's own, it doesn't make for a very magnanimous outlook

I don't think many religious people would be happy to be considered "just people", especially not in a religious setting. Which would then have negative consequences for me, if I considered them to be "just people".

If there is some sort of ideology that they should be beyond personhood, there's probably an element of impersonalism ... that said, it may be that its the nature of organization that different people act in different roles ... IOW just because they are all people doesn't mean that the relationship between any two should be the same as any other (as an obvious example, its often labeled as criminal for a parent to act is the relationship of spouse with their offspring)

 

[wynn]

A general principle (even of physics) is that a view becomes more elegant according to the variety it can encapsulate. ("the one that describes the many")

Like the principle behind the "theory of everything". Yes, in science, there is a striving that a theory should explain as much as possible, the more the better. Although there is some skepticism about a theory of everything.

on the contrary, seeing any sort of person as something other than a person is offensive ... or rather, narrow. I mean if one is draws up the extent of another's "personhood" solely based on the degree that their needs, interests and concerns are in complete accordance with one's own, it doesn't make for a very magnanimous outlook

I'm not sure what you mean by "person" and "personhood"?

My point is that for many Christians, non-Christians are for all practical purposes not exactly considered persons, more like mean, mindless pieces of meat, whose sense of self is acknowledged only when they do something bad ("it was your choice to sin"), but never when they do something good ("it was just God acting through you").

In my experience, Christians are very elitist. I have even been told directly, by Christians who called themselves my friends and who claimed they love me, that my values and goals in life are all wrong. They had no problem with making that clear to me, in those very words, nor did they see any problem with us being friends anyway. It's a bit difficult to describe this. This seems closest: http://samvak.tripod.com/abuse10.html
But since my aim was to do the right thing, to believe in God the right way, I went along with their treatment, I saw no other way. I still have trouble dissociating myself from it or thinking that there is something wrong with it, even if it creeps me out.

that said, it may be that its the nature of organization that different people act in different roles ...

IOW just because they are all people doesn't mean that the relationship between any two should be the same as any other

But how does this actually work out?
Is someone who is higher up in the hierarchy than me entitled to not keep their promises to me, while I still have to trust them and rely on them (because they are higher up in the hierarchy than me)?

Can a devotee who is higher up in the hierachy than me demand that I respect them, while they reserve themselves the right not to respect me?

This certainly seems to be the case.

 

[wynn]

P.S.

I am genuinely asking these questions. I'm not trying to be liberal or victimizing.
There are so many things in religions that go completely against what is "generally considered common sense". So why wouldn't aspects of social interactions be this way as well?

 

[lightgigantic]

Like the principle behind the "theory of everything". Yes, in science, there is a striving that a theory should explain as much as possible, the more the better. Although there is some skepticism about a theory of everything.

It doesn't necessarily have to a theory of evrything .. merely an explanation capable of encapsulating several others

I'm not sure what you mean by "person" and "personhood"?

My point is that for many Christians, non-Christians are for all practical purposes not exactly considered persons, more like mean, mindless pieces of meat, whose sense of self is acknowledged only when they do something bad ("it was your choice to sin"), but never when they do something good ("it was just God acting through you").

In my experience, Christians are very elitist. I have even been told directly, by Christians who called themselves my friends and who claimed they love me, that my values and goals in life are all wrong. They had no problem with making that clear to me, in those very words, nor did they see any problem with us being friends anyway. It's a bit difficult to describe this. This seems closest: http://samvak.tripod.com/abuse10.html
But since my aim was to do the right thing, to believe in God the right way, I went along with their treatment, I saw no other way. I still have trouble dissociating myself from it or thinking that there is something wrong with it, even if it creeps me out.

my point was actually along similar lines ... the very nature of being a person means that there are needs interests and concerns

But how does this actually work out?
Is someone who is higher up in the hierarchy than me entitled to not keep their promises to me, while I still have to trust them and rely on them (because they are higher up in the hierarchy than me)?

Can a devotee who is higher up in the hierachy than me demand that I respect them, while they reserve themselves the right not to respect me?

This certainly seems to be the case.

Generally the course of respect occurs through mutual reciprocation ... although in spiritual practices it is generally suggested to be more respectful rather than less (further details in practically applying this in descriptions of kannistha to uttama .... )

 

[Shadow1]

.

if you wanted to be sure of your beleifs, and choose a relegion, make some studies, first, get know to the other surrounding relegions, or the one you think you like, then, try to see, wich one, is more close to your logic, to your scientific logic, and to your beleifs, try to see how other relegions are, then, i'm sure you'll find what you want, no mater what relegion it is, if you like it, find it good, resenball according to your logic, then, it's don, you found your beleif that you want to beleive in,

 

[wynn]

It doesn't necessarily have to a theory of evrything .. merely an explanation capable of encapsulating several others

But Christians say their view encapsulates all others. For example, "The Vedas are the work of man / the devil".

I don't know ... this seems like a stale-mate situation.

my point was actually along similar lines ... the very nature of being a person means that there are needs interests and concerns

It is said sometimes that at the beginning of one's spiritual path, impersonalism may occur. Perhaps I am experiencing this, and some others are projecting it on me as well.

 

[lightgigantic]

But Christians say their view encapsulates all others. For example, "The Vedas are the work of man / the devil".

I don't know ... this seems like a stale-mate situation.

encapsulating by exclusion is not particularly elegant

It is said sometimes that at the beginning of one's spiritual path, impersonalism may occur. Perhaps I am experiencing this, and some others are projecting it on me as well.

At the core of impersonalism is an inability to acknowledge the needs, interests and concerns of others (mostly due to a resolute focus on one's own needs etc)