To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/07/08 09:28
Subject: [K-list] Mish-mash of thoughts and non-thoughts
From: Llewellyn
On 2000/07/08 09:28, Llewellyn posted thus to the K-list:
[I wrote this not sure if i would send or just think about - in some ways i
hate to delurk - but perhaps someone might enjoy one or two of the links at
least]
Since Raymond is no longer here or posting - i thought i would step in and
throw some random links for people to complain about :). Looking for links
that compared 'spiritual paths' and frameworks that different paths have
developed - i ran across these:
http://www.dharmathecat.com/
this one has some funny stuff and i also really enjoyed the "Inter-Faith
Forum" page with different takes on situations from the perspective of
various paths. Of course, i zeroed in on the Pagan(Wiccan) view of
non-attachment. (or at least one's person POV). Ah, it sounds like
common-sense to me. Why do religions say non-attachment is the ideal and
independent pagans say - 'shit attachment can be good'.
It would seem that once spiritual thought is codified and formed into any
thing, 'religious' and is organized that the purpose shifts into being a
method of control. (if that makes any sense). This goes along with Lao
Tzu's line that
"72
When they lose their sense of awe,
people turn to religion.
When they no longer trust themselves,
they begin to depend upon authority.
.........."
As i have written more than once, i like this version
http://rhino.harvard.edu/elwin/pJoy/taoteching.html of the Dao de Ching, but
other versions/interpretations are available via
http://davidwiley.com/religion.html following the link to
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ .
But, yet Lao Tzu and Taoism are firmly in the camp of non-attachment. I
keep on going back to the premise that the purpose of religions is to
control and pacify the masses. Somehow to take this liberating mystical
experience we encounter with kundalini and control it by providing labels
and rituals and schools upon schools of interpretations of some past k
experiences. It is so easy and comfortable and perhaps even necessary to
believe in something. But how do we know when we have reached the center of
the onion, the center of our souls. Is my center the same as your center -
or what is truth? - As i reflect on Jerry's thoughtful remarks and support
of common-sense: yes, many people disagree on what is true and even on
simple facts - it is clear that all anyone can do is to interpret based on
some context and structure. An interpreted multi-threaded object-oriented
program - if i can use programming terms.
http://www.digiserve.com/mystic/index.html looks specifically at comparing
some common mystical tenants organized into topics such as; "There's a
reality beyond the material world:", You approach that reality by:", "That
reality approaches you through:" and "You're transformed so that you embody
that reality by:" -
One thought in all of this, is that while i was most k active shaking with
kriyas, performing mudras and with seemingly a direct fiber optic link to
the all, - i kept on hearing there is some truth in all of the paths but no
path has it all correct - a synthesis is needed. This message seems to be
sent as well by Redfield's new book.
We have these "mystical experiences" - we know we are connected somehow in
ways that defy space and time and conventional rules of the how the world
works. And we have models of how this has been interpreted and presented
and codified in the past. But something still seems to be missing from this
picture. We go around in our own created reality, including the
non-thinking - all is one reality, or the answer is to stop thinking and to
just-be reality. These are just frameworks - they happen to be frameworks
that pacify and make souls easy to control, so what is the source of these
views.
It is necessary to go back to the earliest ponderings before layers of
filters had been added. We have evidence of many religious texts having
been manipulated and altered to suit the powers of the time. It would make
common-sense that this occurs all of the time. I remember my Indian
philosophy professor's work at rediscovering the intent of the chanters of
the Rg Veda. How do we interpret and understand when we are so far removed
from the context of the original source. How do we interpret in written
form what was intended to have sound and vibration - do we resonate with the
words - is it not just the words but the meter that is required. I
recommend "Meditations Through the Rg Veda : Four-Dimensional Man", by
Antonio De Nicolas.
And how do we separate out re-iteration of old interpretations from
information from a deeper source. All that anybody can do is rely on their
own experiences - but as soon as we limit ourselves to our own experiences
we are in effect denying every other souls connection to the all. This
impasse just seems to be too large.
http://www.virtualchaos.org/mind/towards.html struggles with some of these
issues. I guess we need a unified field theory of spirituality. And i will
not start all of the quantum soul models etc.etc.
Enough of this - i need to find a way to make a living on my farm so i can
find balance walking in my woods and working in the fields.
Peace and balance
Llewellyn
1/5476/6/_/680797/_/963073722/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.