|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
 Posted - May 23 2006 : 07:47:08 AM
|
It's ironic that religious writings would say that man is created in God's image. I think it's quite possible that our bodies were, but what about our organizations? Ego based man has delusions of grandeur, and if we look at history we see that those delusions often consist of one important man lording over everyone else. The more people he can command and control, the more he is lauded, and given titles like "Alexander the Great".
Then those "great" people usually create a heirarchy below them, where a few people are blessed as being close to the great one, and more people are under them, in a pyramid arrangement.
The most great one has the power to dole out punishments and rewards to all his minions as set out by whatever law he deems important. This is the structure of governments, and this is the structure of churches and organizations.
So how ironic it is that according to great religious writings, that is how god operates too. Lording over people, certain ones are close to him, and doleing out punishments and rewards. This seems to be the norm for western religions at least.
Maybe we are all so close to god that we try to create our everyday organizations exactly like him. Or are we so deluded by our ego based thinking that we can't comprehend anything that may be different from us? |
Edited by - AYPforum on Feb 05 2007 01:16:21 AM |
|
|
alan
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2006 : 10:07:15 AM
|
Hi Ether
In the realm of ego based thinking perhaps we can say that god is created in man's image. |
Edited by - alan on May 23 2006 10:13:17 AM |
 |
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2006 : 10:42:30 AM
|
Hi Ether,
I believe that the statement that man is created in God's image means that our consciousness is created in God's image. We are really our consciousness, the body is just something we wear. To be created in God's image would include to be able to express all of God's qualities. However, not all of God's qualities may seem to be expressed fully by everyone because of mud on the windshield, as Jim likes to put it, but that is what Yoga is about, to clear that away. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2006 : 12:33:48 PM
|
Ego based man has delusions of grandeur, and if we look at history we see that those delusions often consist of one important man lording over everyone else.
If you were brought up in a Christian, Jewish or Muslim culture, you may have been given a disposition that assumes that Monotheism is Good, and Polytheism is Bad. In practice, however, these three religions (the Abrahamic religions) are just making god in the image of the Most Powerful Man that they experienced in their societies -- in other words, the tribal kings/chiefs of the desert. If you look at the history of the kings of the middle east, they are aggressive, narcissistic, my-way-or-the-highway, agree-with-me-or-you-are-against-me types. This flavor of 'monotheism' is just the result of expecting god to be like a tribal-god-chief of the desert, who just HAS to lord it over everything/everyone, and can't tolerate any competition, power-sharing or independence of any kind.
http://www.aztriad.com/polygods.html
By the way, I am myself neither a monotheist nor a polytheist, nor an atheist, nor an agnostic.
I'm not saying that adherents of these religions do not ever transcend these images of God -- they certainly do. Nor am I saying that monotheism is always agressive and negative. But the truth is that in their origin at least, and in the old scriptures, these religions do have images of god that are exactly like what you would expect of the local chiefs of the region at that time. It's good food for thought.....
For more, see:
http://www.aztriad.com/pathmark/lesson.html
Here's a quote from it:
It seems a synchronistic thing that I am reading about another's simplistic view of things, Akhenaten of ancient Egypt. It's been a thought provoking time reading Hornung's Akhenaten and the Religion of Light. Hornung describes this Egyptian pharoah who tried to establish his own monotheistic religion, replacing all others, as the "first fundamentalist in human history"(page 126). Fundamentalists strive to reduce everything in the world to a single principle. I remember one of my philosophy teachers in college calling a type of this, a 'radical critique', namely, all the fault in the world is attributable to only one cause. ( I did my paper on radical feminism, as this sort of feminist blames all the world's ills on the actions of men).
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on May 23 2006 12:50:56 PM |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - May 25 2006 : 03:38:53 AM
|
David quoted:
Fundamentalists strive to reduce everything in the world to a single principle. I remember one of my philosophy teachers in college calling a type of this, a 'radical critique', namely, all the fault in the world is attributable to only one cause.
Does this not make us all here fundamentalists?
Do we not strive or unstrive here to reduce everything to love out of stillness ?
Also, if we are God and God is us, we are love and God is love, are we not looking at a mirror of ourselves in God, are we not looking at ourselves, our own image ?.
Having said this, I was agast recently when my 14 year old daughter told me that they were told by their religious teacher that God was an old man in the sky with a beard - I thought that stuff went out with the fairies.
L |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - May 25 2006 : 07:55:19 AM
|
Sparkle said:
"Having said this, I was agast recently when my 14 year old daughter told me that they were told by their religious teacher that God was an old man in the sky with a beard"
I don't think he has a beard, does he?
Sparkle wrote:
"Does this not make us all here fundamentalists?
Do we not strive or unstrive here to reduce everything to love out of stillness ?"
Very good point Sparkle! Difference is we're right and they're wrong. oops, that's the way they think isn't it?
Seriously, I think the answer is in semantics. Although all the fault in the world is in separation from god, which can be put into words in a million different ways, the problems arise when people think they know it all, and judge others as being "right and wrong".
Almost any religion in the world would be beneficial if people didn't try to get others involved in it.
And yes, we are looking at ourselves in God, and that's where the words "in god's image" came from. It's just that people get caught up in words they don't understand, then try to judge and control other people with them.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 25 2006 : 11:00:18 AM
|
Sparkle said:
Does this not make us all here fundamentalists?
Do we not strive or unstrive here to reduce everything to love out of stillness?
I also think the distinction is found when we unpack the meanings carefully.
Everything in its place. In my mind, same with Yoga.
There is personal policy, and the public policy we subscribe to. Within certain meanings of the words, I certainly don't want to reduce everything to love out of stillness. For example, in our behavior as it effects others and the world, knowledge of cause-and-effect is very important -- love out of stillness is not enough and it wreaks havoc if there is not strong cause-and-effect knowledge behind it.
Who want's to be operated on by a surgeon who loves you but is blind?
Fundamentalists of various stripes have deeply simplified and extremely inadequate or even totally false cause-and-effect systems, and they tend to want these cause-and-effect systems to be brought into power, and they can wreak havoc in the process.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on May 25 2006 11:08:00 AM |
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - May 25 2006 : 9:49:55 PM
|
Hari OM
~~~~~~~
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Fundamentalists of various stripes have deeply simplified and extremely inadequate or even totally false cause-and-effect systems, and they tend to want these cause-and-effect systems to be brought into power, and they can wreak havoc in the process.
This could be true...yet the advice given in the Gita is wise:
Because one can perform ones own dharma though lesser in merit, is better than the dharma of another. Better is death in own own's dharma: The Dharma of another brings danger
Now, the question for me is how to bring one around to a different way of thinking?? A universal view of the world? I believe it does not happen by 'telling' but buy influence, example, and creating a joyful and powerfully satvic environment. This goes back to our 2005 conversation "where's the enlightened" - We have a manufacturing problem. We're not producing enough overall sattva to stimulate new modes of thinking and awakings in others... we perhaps may in our way, yet at a observational level its slow going (or am I just in a rush!)... On one end of the spectrum, for the enlighted soul, all's well with the world, and nothing should be changed. For the person steeped in ignorance ( my humble self included) we need some help.
agnir satyam rtam brhat
Frank in San-Diego
|
Edited by - Frank-in-SanDiego on May 25 2006 9:59:46 PM |
|
|
|
alan
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - May 26 2006 : 02:05:29 AM
|
Frank,
are you trying to say that our life-times are short and you'd like to see us all stop putsin' around and get on with the business of enlightening ourselves and changing the prevailing atmosphere? |
Edited by - alan on May 26 2006 06:49:10 AM |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - May 26 2006 : 05:48:51 AM
|
Hi Ether, David and Frank
I've been wondering how to answer Ether's and David's comments and then came Frank whew!!
Frank's comments sum up where I would be coming from so there is no need for me to say any more.
Thanks lads
L |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 26 2006 : 3:02:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alan
Frank,
are you trying to say that our life-times are short and you'd like to see us all stop putsin' around and get on with the business of enlightening ourselves and changing the prevailing atmosphere?
Alan,
I think Frank might be saying to quit critiquing the fundamentalists and get crackin' on getting enlightened, like Krishna says in this here Bible!
LOL! 
-D
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 06:21:03 AM
|
OK; I'm also working on satisfying other parts of the bible where it says I can sell my daughter into slavery, and I can possess slaves, and i can kill people for working on saturday, and should not cut my hair, and that God likes barbecues (lev 1:9) but not football (lev 11:6-8).
I think understanding the motivation and mechanism of people lording over each other is as important as working on enlightening ourselves. Unless your dharma puts you in a place where you have no contact with people, interacting with them is the most powerful method of creating change in the prevailing atmosphere of people's thinking. Understanding the methods of the people who create the evil in the world is what gives us the tools to interact with those who are heading in that direction, and show them a better way. Maybe you guys don't come into contact with anyone like that, but I do. i see kids who are definitely headed in the direction of becoming an evil influence in the world, and if you show them the right way to treat people they will laugh at you and walk on you.
On the other hand, I understand that working on ourselves is the #1 priority, and that's why my posting and reading is sporadic; because there's really nothing to talk about from that perspective. |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 07:14:26 AM
|
Ether
You make reference to evil people, you make reference to the AYP way being better than other ways and yet you say our way is better because it is about loosing the separation.
So if you see people as evil and their ways as inferior surely you are colluding with the very separation you critizise. The us and them is the separation.
Interacting with people is, in my view, the finest way of self enquiry, but it always comes back to oneself. If something upsets us in another person we must recognise that it is that quality in that person that is also in us. It is because it is in us that they can trigger the upset.
Projecting our separation onto others and saying they are wrong and we are right is simply that, a projection of ourselves onto them.
When we engage like this we are battling one ego construction with another ego construction. This is what has been going on for thousands of years between the varous religions.--- Our religion is the only one or is superior to yours, we have a duty to convert you, if you will not be converted we will kill you, the world would be better being rid of evil like you etc. etc.
I'm not saying you should not do it, but pointing out the possibility that you might be operating out of an ego constructed superior position or that you may be putting yourself on a pedestal because you have found AYP and you think it is the "bees knees".
Nor am I saying this just about your Ether, I do this myself all the time and enjoy catching myself at it. In fact I am doing it right now in writing this post.
Have I come round full circle ?
L |
|
|
|
alan
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 1:11:26 PM
|
Hi y'all.
I am in agreement that it can be extremely frustrating when we daily come across people under the influence of a well established order of social control. Ultimately each system is a reflection of each to one degree or another. They are all reflections of what the ego has armored itself with over eons out of fear of annihilation. It seems sometimes futile to, as they say, "let go and let God". But at the end of the day, when all the work of social change is done (or not) we realize that each individual goes through their karma and we know that we can only change ourselves. In fact, God will do the changing in us and in everyone else according to how the karma is playing out. And yet those of us who are accessing Self can dramatically quicken the playing out of karma. As we open to God and let our karmas burn away then real change happens at an increasing rate. It may not be obvious at all, but as we as individuals access Self we are part of a functioning of monumental change whereby we create a space of stillness around us wherein others will find access to peaceful ways. I am of the hope that this surrounding space of Peace will become greater than I can imagine. I don't believe we can know in our current condition what potential lies within.
Great change, perhaps upheaval is afoot. It may take some eye-opening travails to turn the heads of our fellows of millions of "lost souls" toward Peace. Perhaps there are a great multitude who will choose to foster the original intent of their respective religion when faced with choices of universal Peace vs. great suffering and misery at the hands of their fundamentalist leaders, political and or religious.
Let us work toward and pray that we help make these transitions as peaceful as possible by truly becoming vessels of Divine Grace.
Peace |
Edited by - alan on May 27 2006 2:23:38 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 3:20:42 PM
|
In conversations like this, stuff can get so vague that it is very difficult to discuss.
I think understanding the motivation and mechanism of people lording over each other is as important as working on enlightening ourselves.
Any way, I agree with this.
I believe either-or mentalities are a mistake.
Should we be working exclusively on ourselves, or coming to an understanding of errors in ourselves and others, and their mechanisms?
Both. Who thinks we can do only one, and why? And if someone knows we can do more than one, do they think we should omit one of them, and why?
Another point: nondualism, or 'nonseparateness' is an emotional-spiritual disposition, not a cognitive point-of-view. Nondualism or 'nonseparateness' does not imply non-opposition. It's an extremely common mistake to make, to believe that it does. I've been, as I see it, challenging that mistake before now on this forum and I'll inevitably be challenging it again. Some 'enlightened' people have made this mistake, because they got confused; because their emotional enlightenment was not accompanied by an adequate philosophical-cognitive enlightenment.
Wherever it is held that 'we should never oppose', there is always philosophical hypocrisy to follow. Everyone who is engaged in the world 'opposes'. They have to, if they are to engage at all.
Those who promote the idea 'we should not oppose' are opposing, in the promotion of that idea. They are opposing 'opposing'. That's philosophical hypocricy.
If we learn 'nonseparateness', then, we can oppose from the point of view of nonseparateness; from there our opposition will be less aggressive, and more 'open'. If we are open and growing, we may realize that at times we have been opposing the wrong things. Until then, we continue working both on acheiveing nonseparateness, and on opposing when it is needed, with as little aggression as we can.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on May 27 2006 3:21:37 PM |
|
|
|
alan
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 4:00:54 PM
|
I'm sorry I'm not quite sure how to insert a quote.
David, refering to your statement on engaging and being in opposition, I think there are different meanings to the word engage. To engage with someone, whether you agree with them or not, doesn't mean you have to oppose them. To engage can mean a coming together, not necessarily in opposition. It can also mean being completely engrossed in something or someone; giving your full attention. So, I'm just saying there are different ways, or levels of engaging in the world.
Peace, alan |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 4:53:47 PM
|
Sparkle wrote:
"You make reference to evil people, you make reference to the AYP way being better than other ways and yet you say our way is better because it is about loosing the separation."
This is a misunderstanding. I don't think AYP is better than other ways, and the separation I was talking about is between us and god, not other people.
Sparkle wrote:
"So if you see people as evil and their ways as inferior. . ."
I don't see the ways of other people as inferior. i see certain behavior as destructive and I call that evil. For instance, I work with a young kid who is prejudiced against every race and nationality that is not white and american. He is always treating them as if they are inferior,
and his answer to any different idea is you don't know what your talking about, and "I don't give a f**k!" So just giving him love and treating him the same as everyone else just provokes him to steal from the company, treat customers like dirt, and do as little work as possible. It doesn't really bother me at all, and I could just as easily let it go as do anything about it.
But I believe I am put in contact with him because I should do something about it. People like him you have to "knock down a couple pegs" because it's the only thing they understand. believe me, for years I just ignored things like this, and I have no problem doing that, and in fact I would rather do that. But i don't believe ourselves is the only thing we can change. I believe kids that are not brought up with correct values can also be changed, and it is the job of people around them. When you see someone doing damage to others either physical or emotional, and you are the one in control of them, it becomes your responsibility to do something.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 5:12:33 PM
|
alan said:
David, refering to your statement on engaging and being in opposition, I think there are different meanings to the word engage.
Yes. There are so many shades of meaning that conversations like this are difficult even in person, when you can refine your meanings on the spot, and yet more difficult online.
|
|
|
|
alan
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 5:32:46 PM
|
So true, David
Yes Ether, we must 'engage' out-of-line persons who are in our charge, especially young ones. It is our responsibility as elders and fellow human beings. In my experience, especially with young adults, there often is no way to help them conquer their pain and they'd just as soon roll over the one trying to help; or actually target that one who is uncovering painful wounds. These are past experiences though and my ability to 'engage' was hampered by many lacks; my ego got in the way (and it does still). But sometimes, no matter how enlightened we may be, and how much we try to help, the pain one chooses to experience must run its course. Our society is infantile in addressing perpetuation of things like hatred, etc.. In fact our society actually perpetuates such things as we are all painfully aware.
P.S. I'll attempt to figure out how to use quotes, I'm sure it's easy. It didn't work once and I've just been lazy to try again
Peace, alan |
Edited by - alan on May 27 2006 5:46:04 PM |
|
|
|
Shanti
USA
4854 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 5:45:04 PM
|
Hi Ether,
I am touched by your way of thinking. It has to be really hard though to take on such responsibilities... I could not do it... I would love to.. but I don't think I am strong enough or have enough inner silence to be able to handle such a kid. You said you did ignore such things before and now " When you see someone doing damage to others either physical or emotional, and you are the one in control of them, it becomes your responsibility to do something.".. do you think this change has come with meditation? I would love to help.. really help someone.. I have tried before.. but I either get emotionally attached or hurt and that does not help.. I find it drains me emotionally and physically... I need to be more stable in my inner silence I guess before I can help..
Hats off to you though sir... |
Edited by - Shanti on May 27 2006 8:31:09 PM |
|
|
|
Shanti
USA
4854 Posts |
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 7:03:09 PM
|
I think understanding the motivation and mechanism of people lording over each other is as important as working on enlightening ourselves.
I agree with this statement also, but understanding the motivation and mechanism of people lording over each other can only come through understanding ourselves.
For me this understanding comes with the neverending enquiry and laying bare of the layer upon layer of the superior/inferior polarity within me/us.
Whilst I can understand intellectually that I am equal to everyone, on an emotional level I am continually caught with the reality of my superior/inferior, almost unconscious dialogue with people. In fact most of it is unconscious and only becomes conscious as the enquiry goes on, once this happens it can be unravelled.
The more I recognise the traps of my superior/inferior polarity the more I can recognise it in others, not necessarily in opposition to them but as "ah yes, that's me also, I've been there got the tee shirt and I still have so much of it left to deal with - I feel compassion for you"
It would be common courtesy also to perhaps point out traps that others are in, ones that you would recognise from experience - is this opposition ?
The opposition I would see as necessary would be more to do with social relationships and all the necessary and unnessary boundries that come with this. Boundries are constantly being challenged and have to be checked, or the action of the challenger opposed.
Of course because I have ego (and lots of it) I have limited compassion and then a judgement might turn into opposition. This is then an opportunity to further delve into my superior/inferior polarity and perhaps uncover another layer.
Ether, apologies if I have mis-understood what you said.
It would be presumptuous of me to make comment on your work because I don't have experience in that field, but take my hat off to you for the work that you do.
L |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 9:10:58 PM
|
Good job Louis. I think you summed it all up and integrated it.
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - May 27 2006 : 9:14:09 PM
|
Sparkle, yes, we need to understand that mechanism within ourselves first, then we have tools to help other people with it.
I'm coming from quite a different place than you. I have very little ego, (which creates problems also)so I am not provoked very easily. So for me to stand up to an egomaniac and confront them takes acting. I'm not really angry inside, and I don't really care about what I am saying. So instead of taming my ego, I have to learn to be a good actor. Those people won't listen otherwise.
Shanti said:
quote:
but I don't think I am strong enough or have enough inner silence to be able to handle such a kid. You said you did ignore such things before and now " When you see someone doing damage to others either physical or emotional, and you are the one in control of them, it becomes your responsibility to do something.".. do you think this change has come with meditation?
Sure you're strong enough. you don't have to do it all at once. Just little by little you'll find situations you could have handled better, and play act in your head the better way to do it. Sometimes it takes a lot of thought to figure out a way, but that is one little tool you can use next time. you have to build an arsenal of these little tools.
do I think the change comes from meditation? No, but the ability to handle it more easily does. The change comes from my karma, and life choices. My purpose in life is a peacemaker, so that's why I run up against this stuff. I'd much rather be a hermit, but i take on any challenge I get.
I was perfectly happy ignoring such things, but when the same lesson repeats itself in your life it means you're not handling it according to god's will. |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - May 28 2006 : 07:20:01 AM
|
David said:
Good job Louis. I think you summed it all up and integrated it.
Thanks David, I felt also we were coming together on this, I'm glad you see it that way also.
Ether said:
I'm coming from quite a different place than you. I have very little ego
Lucky you Ether
L |
|
|
|
alan
USA
235 Posts |
Posted - May 28 2006 : 10:26:51 AM
|
Whew! I'm glad this appears to be over 'cause I was getting a little winded and wasn't quite sure if I was just getting in the way. Though the subject(s) is important stuff one must laugh at the process of all the different points of view and how they work their way around each other and how things go where they go. That could be a thread in itself
Peace, alan |
Edited by - alan on May 28 2006 10:44:25 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
God created in Man's image?
