Reincarnation

[semilargeintestine]

The other thread got closed before I got an answer.

I am interested in what other faiths believe as far as reincarnation goes. Orthodox Judaism believes very strongly in it, but I'm not sure if it is the same as in other faiths. I assumed it was until someone mentioned that there are different types of reincarnation depending on the belief system. I am ignorant to any of them except my own faith's, so I'm looking for some enlightenment. :)

[Bartholomew]

Buddhist transmigration, in some traditions, can be likened to the leaves on a tree. The tree is barren in the winter, and then bears leaves all through the year until winter comes again. Next spring, the tree has new leaves. These are not the same leaves as they were last year, but they have the same source.

[Ruv Draba]

This is a good question SLI, and I'll try and be helpful and constructive here.

As a rational materialist I'm a firm believer in reincarnation. I think it's not only plausible but provable. Unfortunately I think that it's not the reincarnation that many imagine it to be. To talk about it, I need to take us back to Africa.

Religions have been interested in the survival of self in some form since at least the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh) -- so 2150-2000 BCE. There are lots of different stories about how the self survives, but for me the foundational one comes from ancient Egypt.

The ancient Egyptians believed that our self breaks into five pieces: a body, a šwt (shadow), a ba (personality or soul), a ka (life-force), and a name. The ba was effectively the mind, and they located it in the heart, not the brain. After death, different pieces could go in different directions at will, but the ultimate goal of the faithful was to rejoin their ba and ka and become immortal.

Preservation of the original body was essential to provide a home for the ba and ka, which is why they'd mummify the bodies of kings and priests -- but even the poor looked forward to having a mumified body, thanks to the dry desert air. After death the mummies would be symbolically re-animated by a priest -- but they were more used as a fetish for some symbolic body in the after-life than trying to get the old body to move again. This thinking isn't reincarnation because it's not literally 'being made flesh again', but it's awfully close. The burial of goods with the dead was meant to furnish their after-lives with real property -- and the Chinese do this today too, using paper symbols for money and goods. I don't know of any Egyptian stories of mummies coming back to life, but I find it hard to imagine that they didn't have them. It'd take a very unusual mind to look at a mummified body surrounded by burial goods and not imagine it moving. :eek:

What's most interesting to me about this thinking is how the self splits up. I don't know, but I imagine that if I were an ancient Egyptian I'd identify my 'self' with my ba and name and shadow. The ka would be a commodity -- I'd prefer my own, but perhaps any ka could do. My šwt is the image of my body, and I'd like to keep that to remind me of my own shape. My ba is what I know to be me, and my name is what others know to be me. If I were to go mad I'd be a name without a ba, perhaps. Or if I were outcast I'd be a ba without a name -- both terrible plights to suffer. And if I died and my ka were lost, I'd be a mind without a life -- a ghost perhaps able to see lives but miserably unable to enjoy one. Even worse.

I think that Egyptian thinking is foundational because it highlights all the problems that we have to think about regarding death: What happens to my mind? What happens to my animating spark? What happens to my name or social identity -- my relationships and status? What about my shape? What about the comforts I accumulated in life?

Reincarnation tells several different stories depending on which culture you ask -- and even within the same culture there can be robust differences of opinion:

You can come back in the same body, or a different one;
You may keep your possessions and comforts, or not;
Your mind comes back intact; or
Your mind comes back, but it forgets most of what it knew; your personality and moral identity (your reputation with the gods, the powers of fate etc... -- essentially your true name) are preserved
Neither your mind nor your personality come back, but your moral identity is preserved; or
Your mind comes back, but your moral identity is reset -- you get a new name, and are free from any bad reputation you accumulated in your last life; or
Nothing is preserved except the ka spark which animated you; or
You don't get another body so it's not reincarnation, but otherwise one of the above things happens to the rest of you anyway. :DAs a materialist I'm obliged to acknowledge that our body changes our mind. The ageing process that occurs, the way we lay down memories mean that I cannot recover the child-mind I once was -- I can only remember it with growing dimness. As we age we lose memories, thought function, our sense of humour. We literally lose the minds we had... and should we grow old enough we lose our minds entirely.

For this reason I can't credit any form of afterlife that preserves mind intact, because we can't even preserve it in life. But also as a materialist I realise that our minds leave records -- in our art and philosophy, say -- and the records of minds can be fascinating. So I think that part of our minds can reincarnate -- just not the whole of them.

That leaves what happens to my moral identity (my "name" if you will) and my life-spark.

I think that in some social sense, your society preserves your name for you -- for a while, at least. In the statues and images of leaders we reincarnate their moral identities. In family albums and heirlooms we give ourselves something to heap praise or calumny upon. Granddad's ormolu clock becomes the reincarnation of grandfather's name. Shakespeare's name reincarnates on every print of his plays and poems, and on every print of this rather swish, if balding, portrait.

http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/graphics/shakespeare.jpg

So to my materialist's eye, parts of our minds can reincarnate and so do our names -- sometimes together as with Shakespeare, and sometimes separately -- e.g. in statues and family records where you get the name, but not the mind.

But the moral identity itself mutates according to our growing myths about a person, and preserving the myths about all our dead is a growing burden. Some (like historians and geneology enthusiasts) shoulder that burden willingly, but many don't really bother. In consequence, your name eventually mutates in what it means to people, and eventually your own society and culture move on and much of what's said about you becomes lies... or in the worst case your name becomes just an entry in a book somewhere, or a mark upon a gravestone, a plaque on some wall -- devoid of meaning entirely.

That just leaves the ka and rationalistically, I don't care about the ka. I borrow the atoms of my body from so much other life -- plants and dead animals and maggots and beetles and squillions of bacteria, and atoms that have perhaps never been part of life before -- and all of those atoms are borrowed. I only lease them. The energy that lets them connect and reconnect isn't my energy, yet for a while it animates me and allows me to have mind and name. But then that energy goes and does other things that are unrelated to life -- the energy of those atoms help to create weather, or soil, or sea or fossils or whatever else.

For this reason I don't see the energy of life as special -- it's just a phase of energy. Life is special to me, but only because I have mind. But I couldn't have the energy of my life if it weren't for the energy of non-life around me -- and some of that non-life was once living, so I really need to be grateful to the once-living for now being dead. If they weren't dead, I couldn't live at all. And meanwhile I need to be reconciled to my own destruction of body and mind and name, because it will give other bodies and minds and names a chance to experience a life that they can enjoy, as I enjoy mine.

So since I'm talking to authors-aspirant, I can wish you all a cordial reincarnation -- or several, in fact. I hope that the better parts of your mind reincarnate in writings that people will treasure through multiple reprints. I hope that your name will reincarnate in your writings and images, and that people will heap praise and not calumny on it. I hope that when you die (and not too soon) your ka breaks into a million pieces of life and unlife, and gives countless beings their own chance at life, and that they are somehow dimly grateful for your own gracious death allowing them to live. :D

[johnnysannie]

The other thread got closed before I got an answer.

I am interested in what other faiths believe as far as reincarnation goes. Orthodox Judaism believes very strongly in it, but I'm not sure if it is the same as in other faiths. I assumed it was until someone mentioned that there are different types of reincarnation depending on the belief system. I am ignorant to any of them except my own faith's, so I'm looking for some enlightenment. :)

Overall, the official Catholic position is against it but I, as a Catholic, believe very strongly in it.

[ColoradoGuy]

On a molecular level, of course, we are all incarnations of entities -- animals and plants -- that have gone before us. Some of the molecules in me undoubtedly were once in, say, an ancient trilobite, who passed them on to a dinosaur, who loaned them to saber-toothed tiger, thence to a Ponderosa pine, and so on. Our bodies consist of materials on loan from the universe.

[semilargeintestine]

So since I'm talking to authors-aspirant, I can wish you all a cordial reincarnation -- or several, in fact. I hope that the better parts of your mind reincarnate in writings that people will treasure through multiple reprints. I hope that your name will reincarnate in your writings and images, and that people will heap praise and not calumny on it. I hope that when you die (and not too soon) your ka breaks into a million pieces of life and unlife, and gives countless beings their own chance at life, and that they are somehow dimly grateful for your own gracious death allowing them to live. :D

Very interesting. The Jewish concept of reincarnation is a bit similar if I'm following you correctly. We believe that the body is a transient vessel in this world, so if a soul needs to come back, it will do so in a completely different body (obviously). And so the concept of the body being a reincarnation of many different life forces jives with us too.

But, it is possible that only a part of the soul could need to come back, or perhaps different parts have different things left unfinished and need to go back in different bodies. So one soul could potentially reincarnate into multiple people. We essentially believe that the soul is light--energy.

[semilargeintestine]

On a molecular level, of course, we are all incarnations of entities -- animals and plants -- that have gone before us. Some of the molecules in me undoubtedly were once in, say, an ancient trilobite, who passed them on to a dinosaur, who loaned them to saber-toothed tiger, thence to a Ponderosa pine, and so on. Our bodies consist of materials on loan from the universe.

I always wanted to be a dinosaur. I might be part t-rex after all. :D

[Bartholomew]

As a materialist I'm obliged to acknowledge that our body changes our mind. The ageing process that occurs, the way we lay down memories mean that I cannot recover the child-mind I once was -- I can only remember it with growing dimness. As we age we lose memories, thought function, our sense of humour. We literally lose the minds we had... and should we grow old enough we lose our minds entirely.

For this reason I can't credit any form of afterlife that preserves mind intact, because we can't even preserve it in life.

This is one case where the absence of evidence, in my opinion, supports the spiritual, and not the material perspective. Take an ant colony: we know fairly well that they communicate with chemicals, but we have no idea what the factor that controls their hive-mind is. They move in a very organized way, and always to a well-planned purpose. Their ant-burrows have an amazing complexity to them, and often even have portions that will be safe in a bad storm. But even their queen is not the planner, here. Somehow, and this has never been adequately explained, the ant colony organizes itself. Chemical trails and basic instincts can get one only so far when considering an ant colony. There's still the unidentified organizing unit, the thing that determined that this chemical trail marks the way to food, the other one to safety; there's still the question of which ant designed the ant-hill, which ant decided burrowing in the dirt was a good idea, and why the ants may decide to evict a local termite colony.

There is no evidence to support, in the case of an ant colony, a material organizing unit. And I see the same problem even in humanity. Yes, our brains give orders to our bodies. But... what controls the brain? Random impulses? What causes the impulses? And in this, I find a vague, yet unexplored spot where an animating spark or a soul or what have you could exist.

[Ruv Draba]

This is one case where the absence of evidence, in my opinion, supports the spiritual, and not the material perspective.As a secular humanist I don't see a distinction between the spiritual and the material -- they're coterminous for me, since for me spirit is about mind, morality, ethics, relationships and society -- and those things are informed by material observations and our spritual thought creates material impacts.

I interpret you to mean superstitious -- in the literal sense of super+stare meaning 'To stand above' (e.g. to stand above the problem and our observations). Our ignorance always courts a superstitious answer as a prelude to some other more practical answer. We did that with chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology, medicine, and psychology too. We were wrong every time, but we still do it.

I prefer to leave the cracks as cracks to remind me of my ignorance and save the effort of digging stuff out later, but that's just me -- some folk can't live with gaping holes in the walls, and they fill it with whatever comes to hand. It's natural to mortar the interstices of our knowledge with 'superstices' -- and just as natural to dig the superstition out again when we have a more rational and illuminating answer.
There is no evidence to support, in the case of an ant colony, a material organizing unit. And I see the same problem even in humanity.I'll come back to that at the end, but to continue...

What sort of better answer? That's speculative, but I used to research in the area of Artificial Intelligence and can offer some suggestions:

We know from both modelling and experiment that simple genetic activity (combination and selection) can produce extraordinarily adaptive complexity. This has been used in mathematical models to solve certain kinds of problems. Called Genetic Algorithms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithms), the methods are stochastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic)(i.e. contain randomness), and can be very effective, but can be so simple that a child can set them up.
We know from modelling and experiment that neural networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_networks) can perform complex recognition and adaptation functions.
Certain mineralogical processes show extraordinary adaptation and surprising order too, and this has been used in a technique called simulated annealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing) to solve real-world problems.
Chaos theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) also connects -- we have systems with very few inputs and no inherent computation that nevertheless offer high levels of adaptation. We're starting to use these approaches to things like making traffic more intelligent (e.g. the 'magic roundabout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon))')For me, order from chaos will always look magical even if we learn to do it reliably. I love how ants learn about their changing environment and respond to it. While it would delight me if ants were themselves neurons in a self-aware ant mind, I don't think it at all likely. We can already do much of what ants do (http://www.icosystem.com/releases/DefenseNews_03022003.htm) using simple mathematical formulae. We can even make dumb commuters do smarter things without even realising that they're doing them. :D

I'm very confident that we'll crack ants using existing techniques. We've almost got it. With military levels of spending I think we'll have basic ant adaptation solved in the next decade.

The complexity of human mind is a much longer task -- we're still working out what mind is. I'm pretty convinced that not all of it is located in the skull -- we might need to be more holistic about it. But once we get ants I think we'll be able to chip away at a lot of adaptive human behaviours -- especially the subconscious intuitive ones that so mystify us.

Will we ever be able to get a computer to simulate a human mind? It depends on how closely you want to look. In the 1966 we could already pass a computer off as a human in limited situations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA) and we weren't even trying. By 1984 a colleague of mine was able to get a computer to simulate a stoned forum poster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V_Shaney) -- again, without really trying (Mark V. Shaney is still smarter than a lot of the P&CE posts we get. :D). There are some serious challenges in understanding the operation of mind, but we humans are fairly easy to fool too because we invent mind even when it's not there. ("Stupid chair!")

If we end up getting mind simulated reliably then I think we may have to face the prospect of self being entirely an illusion of how mind operates. That's been an Eastern philosophical proposition for over a milennium, but there's some psychology heading that way now too. But if it pans out then I think that afterlife may disappear (after I imagine, a huge struggle, and probably not in our lifetimes), and reincarnation may become irrelevant. What might happen then I don't know. Religions won't go away. Perhaps we'll go back to ba and ka?

[AMCrenshaw]

Mark V. Shaney-- aka Higgins?

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I'm Pagan, and I believe in reincarnation as well. But I don't know what kind of reincarnation I believe in (i.e. what it's exactly called). I believe that my same spirit has lived several thousand lives, each one, of course, being in a different kind of body. I noticed your post on being a T-Rex, SLI, and I hold to a similar belief myself. I don't see it as far-fetched at all to believe that I was an animal at some points in my existence and later incarnated as other beings, etc.

And on a side note: I am amazed to find out what you said in your original post about your religion believing in reincarnation. I have never heard that before, and have been wondering about that for years.


Blessed Be. :)

[GeorgeK]

and should we grow old enough we lose our minds entirely.

For this reason I can't credit any form of afterlife that preserves mind intact, because we can't even preserve it in life.

Then your assumption is that this dimension is the most powerful. If you mind fails here, then it must fail in all other dimensions?

Actually you can regain the childlike mind. All that takes is to be forgetful to the point of everything being new again. Old long forgotten memories can come back. There are well documented cases of people after a stroke forgetting their current language and suddenly being fluent in a long forgotten childhood language. It's in there. They just don't know how to access the memories. It could be that after death, the mind being unburdened from the body can reaccess all of the life's memories.

[Ruv Draba]

Then your assumption is that this dimension is the most powerful. If you mind fails here, then it must fail in all other dimensions?Being a rational materialist I'd need you to define 'other dimension' and demonstrate constructive material evidence of its existence and the likelihood of mind to exist there before I could hold a discussion about it with you outside of fiction. :)
Actually you can regain the childlike mind.There is organic brain deterioration as we age. We don't know how to reverse it and it affects capacities of mind. To persuade me that it doesn't matter, please remove your brain and talk to me. I'd also give partial credit if you took up a job as an infomercial actor instead. :D

[semilargeintestine]

I'm Pagan, and I believe in reincarnation as well. But I don't know what kind of reincarnation I believe in (i.e. what it's exactly called). I believe that my same spirit has lived several thousand lives, each one, of course, being in a different kind of body. I noticed your post on being a T-Rex, SLI, and I hold to a similar belief myself. I don't see it as far-fetched at all to believe that I was an animal at some points in my existence and later incarnated as other beings, etc.

And on a side note: I am amazed to find out what you said in your original post about your religion believing in reincarnation. I have never heard that before, and have been wondering about that for years.


Blessed Be. :)

Just to note, I want to make it clear that Judaism does not believe that we could at one point have been animals. When I said I may have been a t-rex, I meant simply that part of my body could be made up of molecules that once existed inside a t-rex or something. I don't even know if that's possible, but it sounds cool.

[semilargeintestine]

Then your assumption is that this dimension is the most powerful. If you mind fails here, then it must fail in all other dimensions?

I don't think that's necessarily true. We may be sent back here to fulfill a mission or to finish our obligation of fulfilling the 613 mitzvot (obviously this is related just to Jews), but it doesn't mean we will remember past lives or even anything from the spiritual plane. The point is to not know what is going on in that world. In fact, it is taught that right before we enter our bodies at birth, an angel teaches us the entire Torah and then makes us forget it. The point is that we have it stored away somewhere so that we are innately drawn to it, but we still have to learn it and come to love it.


Actually you can regain the childlike mind. All that takes is to be forgetful to the point of everything being new again. Old long forgotten memories can come back. There are well documented cases of people after a stroke forgetting their current language and suddenly being fluent in a long forgotten childhood language. It's in there. They just don't know how to access the memories. It could be that after death, the mind being unburdened from the body can reaccess all of the life's memories.

This describes pretty well what I just wrote.

[ColoradoGuy]

Just to note, I want to make it clear that Judaism does not believe that we could at one point have been animals. When I said I may have been a t-rex, I meant simply that part of my body could be made up of molecules that once existed inside a t-rex or something. I don't even know if that's possible, but it sounds cool.
I not only think it's possible, I think it's probable, although I probably was part of a dumb herbivore with a brain the size of a walnut or an ancient insect crawling over the forest floor. Most molecules are as old, or nearly as old, as the universe. And SLI, you'd make an excellent Tyrannosaurus, and I mean that in the best way.

[semilargeintestine]

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/drmg01/rm_tyrannosaurus_jpg.jpg

The lesser known Jewishaurus Rex.

[Ruv Draba]

"I've got a mouth that could eat a mammoth, and arms that couldn't break a matzo-cracker, but I should complain?"

[semilargeintestine]

Jewishaurus Rex lives in the Chassidish section of Pangea. He hunts good bargains and only eats kosher triceratops.

[GeorgeK]

Being a rational materialist I'd need you to define 'other dimension' and demonstrate constructive material evidence of its existence and the likelihood of mind to exist there before I could hold a discussion about it with you outside of fiction. :)

First prove to a square that cubes are not myth. If multiple dimensions work in math, why shouldn't they work in theology?

To persuade me that it doesn't matter,

non sequitor

[GeorgeK]

a matzo-cracker,

(Shudders in horror at the memories) Matzo is to me what silver is to werewolves.

[Ruv Draba]

First prove to a square that cubes are not myth. If multiple dimensions work in math, why shouldn't they work in theology?Well, that's a very Platonic view of the world -- if it's beautiful then it must be universal. Keats might have agreed with you. Plato is a friend to poets and mystics.

As a rational materialist I'm more Aristotelian. Aristotle is a friend of scientists. I don't have to prove anything unless I first claim something, but if I claim something then I do need to supply evidence. So if I claim that say, an ant-colony probably isn't self-aware but that elephants probably are then I need to point to material things that my fellow humans can check and confirm independently of me, or hush my mouth.

However, when folk want to talk about fiction as reality I don't actually have to think about those claims unless they supply the same sorts of evidence that I'm obliged to supply myself. You're not obliged to supply evidence of our minds existing in other dimensions, but I'm free to treat the proposition as just poetry until you do. :D

(Poetic dreamery is worthwhile in its own right, by the way -- I just separate it from any discussion about reality for the purposes of rational hygeine)

[semilargeintestine]

(Shudders in horror at the memories) Matzo is to me what silver is to werewolves.

I wasn't going to say anything, but they also aren't crackers. They're bread, just unleavened.

Also, it's nasty. And I'm Jewish.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Just to note, I want to make it clear that Judaism does not believe that we could at one point have been animals. When I said I may have been a t-rex, I meant simply that part of my body could be made up of molecules that once existed inside a t-rex or something. I don't even know if that's possible, but it sounds cool.


Oh, I didn't mean it that way, SLI. I just meant that I personally hold that belief. I know I sometimes don't come across too clearly, but that's what I meant.

My post was more surprise than anything else at you saying Orthodox Judaism believed in reincarnation. I'd never heard that before, and so that was totally new to me.

[semilargeintestine]

Really? It's a pretty big part of our faith. We also believe in resurrection (one big one when Moshiach comes).

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Really? It's a pretty big part of our faith. We also believe in resurrection (one big one when Moshiach comes).


Yeah. I was told that Jews believed the way Christians did about the afterlife. I'd been wondering what the Jewish faith really believed for a long time.

So yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by your first post.

[semilargeintestine]

The Jewish belief about the afterlife is starkly different from everything I've heard about the Chr-stian belief. If you want, I can give you a basic summary.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

The Jewish belief about the afterlife is starkly different from everything I've heard about the Chr-stian belief. If you want, I can give you a basic summary.


That would be cool. I appreciate it a bundle. :)

[semilargeintestine]

Okay. So basically, Judaism differs from many religions in that its focus is on life rather than afterlife. This world is not simply a struggle to go through until the afterlife. While there is a famous saying that this world is like the "waiting room" for the World to Come in which we prepare, the importance of this world is not downplayed. Instead, we realise that the purpose of this world for a Jew is to accept the Torah and strive to keep it as best as we can so that we may cleave to G-d.

However, there is certainly a strong belief in the afterlife and the spiritual plane in general. Part of the oral tradition that was handed down to Moses at Mt. Sinai is the Kabbalah. It is basically the mystical/spiritual side of Judaism. It centers around a work that goes through the written Torah and interprets it from the standpoint of the spiritual plane. It shows us how each action we perform has drastic consequences in the spiritual world, both good and bad.

The Hebrew term for the afterlife is Olam Ha-Ba, or the World to Come. It is mentioned briefly in the Tanakh and discussed a bit in the Talmud, but the majority of our knowledge comes from Kabbalah and oral tradition that has still not been written down. What I know is just a tiny bit of the knowledge out there that requires a level of holiness not many achieve.

The rabbinic literature, however, discusses the basic path of the deceased. The soul is immortal, so it certainly survives death. After the body dies, the soul meets the Satan as the Angel of Death (another of his jobs), where it is escorted to the World to Come.

There have only been four people in history who never sinned, so everyone must first go to what we call Gehinom (translated as Gehenna). This is often likened to Hell; however, it is far different from the Chr-stian concept of Hell. Gehenna is more like a purgatory. It is a cleansing process through which the soul goes in preparation for ascending to Gan Eden, or paradise. In Gehenna, the soul relives its life on Earth with the true knowledge. It will then experience the pain of having remorse for its sins, purifying itself. The period of "punishment" lasts for no longer than 12 months except for certain extreme exceptions. This is why we only say the mourner's prayer for 11 months after a relative dies, even a parent or spouse.

After this period is over, the soul ascends to Gan Eden, or the Garden of Eden. It is important to note that this is not the Garden that Adam and Eve were in, but a spiritual paradise. Essentially, it is the soul returning to its source--G-d. It is the joy of being close to Him; however, it is not felt the same by all souls. It's like going to the symphony. There are the best seats, and there are the worst seats; however, everyone gets a ticket (except for a handful of people...which isn't much of an exaggeration).

As far as the concept of reincarnation goes, it's very complicated. Basically though, it can be summed up with a quote from Kabbalah:

As long as a person is unsuccessful in his purpose in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, uproots him and replants him over and over again.

If a soul goes to Gehenna and has not completed its mission and fulfilled all the commandments of the Torah, it will be sent back to this world to try again. As it says in the book of Job:

Behold, all these things does God do -- twice, even three times with a man -- to bring his soul back from the pit that he may be enlightened with the light of the living.

Once the mission is fulfilled, the soul can ascend to Gan Eden.

The details of all this are extremely complicated and require a very deep understanding of the Torah, The Talmud, and Kabbalah. It is way beyond the scope of this forum to go into detail about it. And to be honest, I'm not sure if I'd even be allowed.

[Bartholomew]

Just a random interrupt. How come every twentieth person or so blots out a vowel in certain words? G-d. Chr-st. Is there significance to this? I may have asked this before somewhere, but I can't remember being answered.

[Ruv Draba]

Just a random interrupt. How come every twentieth person or so blots out a vowel in certain words? G-d. Chr-st. Is there significance to this? I may have asked this before somewhere, but I can't remember being answered.In some religions it's offensive for the profane to use the name of a deity. In some religions even the devout are forbidden from using the name.

Anthropologically it's a taboo -- one that makes the deity more sacred. In the same way, Muslims are forbidden from holding the Qur'an in certain ways, or treating it as an ordinary book. Likewise with other holy symbols or people or places. Many cultures have secular taboos, but every religion I can think of has taboos around its sacred items. I believe that it's the taboos that make them sacred in the first place -- though the devout might argue the reverse.

On a personal level, taboos drive me crazy. I have to fight a compulsion to challenge them -- like people who have to pop bubble-wrap, or push the red button that says 'don't push'. I refrain in polite company but in private I'm a compulsive iconoclast. I'm okay with signs like 'do not walk on the grass', but taboos whose sole job is to elevate social status catch my attention like a magpie to a brass button.

In Thailand it's considered very disrespectful to lick stamps because they bear the image of the Thai King... and one doesn't lick the King -- it's filthy and bestial. You can get arrested for doing so. Every time I see his image I have to fight a compulsion to lick it -- just because there's an arbitrary rule that says I mustn't. I don't want to dishonour the Thai King -- he's an extraordinarily devoted monarch. I have no reason to want to lick the monarch of any country... I just can't stand having the rule in my head unchallenged. I don't lick him because it might offend, but I sure make a lot of jokes about it.

http://espimages.biz/2204/I/315/10/smNAVY-CHILDS-TIE.jpghttp://www.worldofstock.com/thumbs/PAB2063.jpg←http://images-0.redbubble.net/img/clothing/bodycolor:white/size:small/style:mens/view:main/2005966-4-no-licking.jpg

[semilargeintestine]

Just a random interrupt. How come every twentieth person or so blots out a vowel in certain words? G-d. Chr-st. Is there significance to this? I may have asked this before somewhere, but I can't remember being answered.

We are forbidden from using the name of G-d carelessly. Since G-d is one of His names (albeit in translation), I take out the "o" out of respect. As far as Chr-stianity and Jes-s go, we are forbidden from writing the names of false gods, etc. Not everyone follows either of these, but most Orthodox Jews will at least take the "o" out of G-d.

[Gehanna]

I'm donating my body to a group of quantum physicists when I die so they can put me in a particle collider and turn me into a black hole.

Gehanna

[Sean D. Schaffer]

We are forbidden from using the name of G-d carelessly. Since G-d is one of His names (albeit in translation), I take out the "o" out of respect. As far as Chr-stianity and Jes-s go, we are forbidden from writing the names of false gods, etc. Not everyone follows either of these, but most Orthodox Jews will at least take the "o" out of G-d.


I knew about taking the 'o' out of God, but I did not know about not spelling out names of other gods. That's interesting.

Sorry about taking this thread off-topic, but I really do appreciate what I've learned here. :)

[semilargeintestine]

It's no big deal. Learning is always a good thing. :)

I'm still interested in the concept of reincarnation in Buddhism and Hinduism if anyone is familiar with those religions.

[GeorgeK]

Plato is a friend to poets and mystics.



Actually they have excerpts of reviews of literary competitions from ancient Athens, and Plato was not well liked if the excerpts are typical. Plato complained that the audience wasn't smart enough to get his genious and the audience complained that his stuff was too full of math.

[aruna]

I'm still interested in the concept of reincarnation in Buddhism and Hinduism if anyone is familiar with those religions.

Semilargeintestine,

I come from the Vedantic school of Advaita, a branch of Hinduism which concerns itself not with God (or gods) and the Afterlife, but with who and what we are, here and now; with the mind, consciousness, and thought processes. Advaita both accepts AND denies reincarnation. It teaches that there is only one Self, in which every one of us is embedded (my word). That Self is pure; pure love, pure bliss, pure awareness, pure consciousness.

Think of a glass of pure water!

Superimposed upon that Self is the small self, the individual "I" or ego (not in the Freudian sense), the sense of Me, with all the thoughts and feelings that go with Me. It is the "Me" that collects mental impressions, known in Sanscrit as vasanas -- comprising each individual, and making us believe that we are all separate, special little snowflakes; and it is those vasanas that dictate how we live our lives. Vasanas translates as "latent mental impressions". A more complex explanation here. (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Vasana/id/62761)


Think of water that has been muddied, or to which coloured paint has been added! Millions of glasses of differently-coloured water. Yet the foundation of each of the liquids is only -- pure water.

The small "Me" (the colour in the glass) is by nature greedy and out for its own advantage; because it cannot see beyond itself. It is opaque.

That collection of vasanas is really nothing more than a bundle of thoughts. A veritable tangle. It impells us to be reborn again and again until we have reached the end of our journey = which is to reconnect with what we really are, know ourselves at that, and so live in love and compassion with all beings. To untangle the knot of thought and feeling that is the individual "I", and return "home".

The more the individual turns inwards (through prayer and/or meditation) to re-connect with the greater Self at the core of one's being, the more those vasanas fade. The person dies and is reborn into a body and a life more conducive to reconnecting with the greater Self -- perhaps into a spiritual family, or to have experiences that drive him or her to seek. Our lives become less controlled by vasanas, more in tune with the greater Self. We are good not because we want to be good, but because our very nature is goodness.

Think of muddied water that has been filtered until it is once again pure!

Through practice the "I" over time grows more and more transparent; the Self shines through, we become happier and more content in ourselves, until eventually the need to be reborn vanishes as we "realise" that we were always That to begin with -- that is called realisation, or self-realisation. The person who is "realised" acknowledges that the individual "I" was only an illusion to begin with, having no substance or reality in itself, and thus was never reincarnated. That is the end of all human striving. It is perfect, constant joy; whenever we feel supreme happiness, it's a tiny glimpse of that; the curtain of "I-ness" drawn away. Mostly, it comes at the end of a lifetime of extreme effort (usually meditation), in old people, though there are a few extraordinary exceptions.


There is organic brain deterioration as we age. We don't know how to reverse it and it affects capacities of mind. To persuade me that it doesn't matter, please remove your brain and talk to me. I'd also give partial credit if you took up a job as an infomercial actor instead. :D

The brain may deteriorate, but "something" deep inside is permanantly aware and alive and never deteriorates. That is what is meant by a "childlike" mind. The trick is to consciously cultivate it throughout one's life; then old age would be actually the summit of human experience...
There is a reason why in so many cultures old people are deemed wise.


Wow! This post has become LONG! I never meant for that... guess I got carried away! But I didn't want to give the usual clicheed answer to the question.

[Ruv Draba]

I come from the Vedantic school of Advaita, a branch of Hinduism which concerns itself not with God (or gods) and the Afterlife, but with who and what we are, here and nowInteresting. How old is that particular branch, Aruna? From what thought (Hindu or otherwise) did it derive?

The brain may deteriorate, but "something" deep inside is permanantly aware and alive and never deteriorates. That is what is meant by a "childlike" mind. The trick is to consciously cultivate it throughout one's life; then old age would be actually the summit of human experience...
There is a reason why in so many cultures old people are deemed wise.We gain in wisdom throughout our lives, even if our lives are short. (By wisdom I mean the ability to discern the important from the unimportant -- to seek the information needed to deal with challenges.) The old are not necessarily wise, but they are generally wiser than when they were young. Their experiences offer insights that the young don't have.

I've seen no evidence that anything in the brain does not deteriorate in late age. We know that all measurable brain-functions do: speech, reflexes, short-term memory, long-term memory, decision-making... and key functions of mind such as humour, personality, key memories. We know that the brain's ageing process doesn't occur all at once at the end, but gradually, from our mid-twenties onward. The signs of this ageing are visible and there's no credible evidence that anyone is exempt. The best we've found is that some mental activity (like learning a language) can slow some deterioration. So the 'something' isn't brain and it isn't any mind-function science has been able to measure. There's no material evidence that any cognitive function doesn't age.

[Noumenon]

This is a good question SLI, and I'll try and be helpful and constructive here.

As a rational materialist I'm a firm believer in reincarnation. I think it's not only plausible but provable. Unfortunately I think that it's not the reincarnation that many imagine it to be. To talk about it, I need to take us back to Africa. ...As a secular humanist I don't see a distinction between the spiritual and the material -- they're coterminous for me, since for me spirit is about mind, morality, ethics, relationships and society -- and those things are informed by material observations and our spritual thought creates material impacts. ...Okay. So basically, Judaism differs from many religions in that its focus is on life rather than afterlife. ...Semilargeintestine,

I come from the Vedantic school of Advaita, a branch of Hinduism which concerns itself not with God (or gods) and the Afterlife, but with who and what we are, here and now; with the mind, consciousness, and thought processes. ...Very rewarding reading here, so my thanks to everyone getting involved (but particularly the extended speakers). I'm definitely from Ruv Draba's camp - it's nice to see the perspective so well and accessibly expressed - but I find the eastern philosophies very interesting.

The closing chapters of Sam Harris' The End of Faith points to the meditative tradition as a reply to the charge that a materialist perspective allows for no spirituality (he acknowledges that some strands of Buddhism do worship a deity, but notes that successful meditation doesn't demand belief in unprovable beings - I mean that in a non-pejorative sense!). Also, while the end of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon doesn't prove that meditation at the point of death will free the soul to endure for eternity, it would be interesting to discover the facts there first hand!

[aruna]

Interesting. How old is that particular branch, Aruna? From what thought (Hindu or otherwise) did it derive?

Advaita is as ancient as Hinduism itself - I've read texts going back a couple thousand years. However, it pretty much fell out of fashion for a few hundred years, and was revived in the last century by people like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargatta Maharaj (the latter of whom I was privileged enough to visit, before he died.

In recent years it has become incredibly popular, particuarly in the west. The old ashram I visit in South India used to have only a handful of foreign visitors in the winter season, nobody in summer. Now, it has hundreds of thousands of visitors, mostly Indians, but hundreds of foreigners as well. all year round. However, few of them practice the orthodox advaita; there's something called "Neo-Advaita", which is a watered down, Westernised version. People like Eckhart Tolle (assuming you've heard of him!) are all Neo-Advaitists.

We gain in wisdom throughout our lives, even if our lives are short. (By wisdom I mean the ability to discern the important from the unimportant -- to seek the information needed to deal with challenges.) The old are not necessarily wise, but they are generally wiser than when they were young. Their experiences offer insights that the young don't have.

True enough. But I was really referring to the wisdom Advaitists call Realisation, which is not dependent on llearning from outer experiences in the world, but only on direct experience of what I called, in my example above, "pure water!"

I've seen no evidence that anything in the brain does not deteriorate in late age. We know that all measurable brain-functions do: speech, reflexes, short-term memory, long-term memory, decision-making... and key functions of mind such as humour, personality, key memories.

I'm sure the brain and mental functions do deteriorate. I notice this in myself, going on 60 as I am! My memory is not as good as it once was and I am not as intelectually quick. So it goes! And there is truly no evidence of that "something" I speak of. All we have to go on are the reports of those who do experience it and tell of it; we can believe them or not, and I chose to believe. And my own experience confirms it - after almost 40 years of practice of AdvaitaI am ever more aware of another part of my being independent of the above deterioration, which is growing in strength from year to year - thank goodness! It seems to be independent of the brain and mental functions.

[semilargeintestine]

I come from the Vedantic school of Advaita, a branch of Hinduism which concerns itself not with God (or gods) and the Afterlife, but with who and what we are, here and now; with the mind, consciousness, and thought processes. Advaita both accepts AND denies reincarnation. It teaches that there is only one Self, in which every one of us is embedded (my word). That Self is pure; pure love, pure bliss, pure awareness, pure consciousness...

Wow! This post has become LONG! I never meant for that... guess I got carried away! But I didn't want to give the usual clicheed answer to the question.

That's fascinating. That's so much for the informative post (long = good if it's well written and useful). I see many resemblances to Kabbalah in there. The idea that we are all really part of the same source is a basic concept of Kabbalah. In fact, it views everything as really being part of the same source. Through prayer and meditation and doing mitzvahs, we leave more and more of our physicality behind and (re-)connect with G-d.

Do you believe that reincarnation is something that occurs with every death? When a person dies, are they automatically reincarnated? Jewish belief on reincarnation is that it occurs, but not necessarily for every soul. If a soul completes its mission, there is no need for reincarnation, as every physical life comes with it the high probability of blemishing the soul, which would need further purification.



I've seen no evidence that anything in the brain does not deteriorate in late age. We know that all measurable brain-functions do: speech, reflexes, short-term memory, long-term memory, decision-making... and key functions of mind such as humour, personality, key memories. We know that the brain's ageing process doesn't occur all at once at the end, but gradually, from our mid-twenties onward. The signs of this ageing are visible and there's no credible evidence that anyone is exempt. The best we've found is that some mental activity (like learning a language) can slow some deterioration. So the 'something' isn't brain and it isn't any mind-function science has been able to measure. There's no material evidence that any cognitive function doesn't age.

Aruna is refering to what we call a soul. ;)

[aruna]

That's fascinating. That's so much for the informative post (long = good if it's well written and useful). I see many resemblances to Kabbalah in there. The idea that we are all really part of the same source is a basic concept of Kabbalah. In fact, it views everything as really being part of the same source. Through prayer and meditation and doing mitzvahs, we leave more and more of our physicality behind and (re-)connect with G-d.
Advaita holds that all religions are merely different paths to the same goal -- so that's not surprising!

Do you believe that reincarnation is something that occurs with every death? When a person dies, are they automatically reincarnated? Jewish belief on reincarnation is that it occurs, but not necessarily for every soul. If a soul completes its mission, there is no need for reincarnation, as every physical life comes with it the high probability of blemishing the soul, which would need further purification.

I believe that we are reincarnated up until the point that we have left all earthly desires, longings and attachments behind us. It's those attachments that draw us back...




Aruna is refering to what we call a soul. ;)

How much more eloquently you put it! I have to admit a certain self-consciousness about certain words, as their meanings have so many interpretations, none of which might be what I mean... which is why I also avoid the Big G-word.

Intersting, the Jews not taking the Name in vain.
I was raised by atheist parents and yet as a child I used to cringe whenever I heard people say that word carelessly or worse, in swearing. I felt something so grand, mysterious, holy in it that I felt it should never, ever be spoken except withthe utmost reverence. Nobody told me that; I felt it.

[semilargeintestine]

Advaita holds that all religions are merely different paths to the same goal -- so that's not surprising!


I believe that we are reincarnated up until the point that we have left all earthly desires, longings and attachments behind us. It's those attachments that draw us back...

So very similar. That's interesting, though not entirely surprising as you put it.


How much more eloquently you put it! I have to admit a certain self-consciousness about certain words, as their meanings have so many interpretations, none of which might be what I mean... which is why I also avoid the Big G-word.

Yeah, I'm not so hesitant. :D I don't write the name G-d out for respect. There are many Jewish views that a name in another language doesn't count as a real name because Hebrew is the Holy Tongue, so writing it out or saying it is not a problem. While I do sometimes say it in the context of a "Thank G-d" or a sentence talking about Him, I don't write it because I take the strict view that any name of G-d is a name of G-d.

Intersting, the Jews not taking the Name in vain.
I was raide by atheist parents and yet as a child I used to cringe whenever I heard people say that word carelessly or worse, in swearing. I felt something so grand, mysterious, holy in it that I felt it should never, ever be spoken except withthe utmost reverence. Nobody told me that; I felt it.

It's inside everyone, just deeper in others. :)

[Ruv Draba]

Advaita is as ancient as Hinduism itself - I've read texts going back a couple thousand years. However, it pretty much fell out of fashion for a few hundred years, and was revived in the last century by people like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargatta Maharaj (the latter of whom I was privileged enough to visit, before he died.Thank you! I enjoy finding out such things.

And there is truly no evidence of that "something" I speak of. All we have to go on are the reports of those who do experience it and tell of it; we can believe them or not, and I chose to believe.For me it's not a matter of choosing to believe. If I put truth above my own desires as a matter of conscience then I don't get to choose. There's either sufficient evidence or there isn't. Self-interested testimony isn't trustable. Elderly athletes frequently report that 'I'm fitter than I was 20 years ago'. They may even feel this to be true, but their athletic performance steadily deteriorates by any objective measure. We love to deny our ageing and our mortality. Truth is truth whether it's pleasant or not; our desires don't come into it.

Aruna is refering to what we call a soul. ;)Aruna agrees that there's no evidence for its existence other than testimony. Meaning no disrespect to those who are convinced, I find such belief to be self-interested, which makes the testimony unreliable and compromises our own evaluation. I'll happily believe in a soul if someone can supply sufficient objective evidence, but not simply because I'd like to live longer.

[semilargeintestine]

Really? This doesn't seem to say that:

How much more eloquently you put it! I have to admit a certain self-consciousness about certain words, as their meanings have so many interpretations, none of which might be what I mean... which is why I also avoid the Big G-word.

Having a soul and living longer are not necessarily related, at least not in Jewish thought.

[aruna]

I find such belief to be self-interested, .

I'd like to amend that to Self-interested! :)

From the point of view of Advaita, there's a huge difference: are you focussed on your little petty self, or on the Self beyond your known limitations? One leads to self-love and narcissim, the other to love of all humanity, compassion and self-sacrifice. It's the question the Advaitin must ask him or herself day in, day out. Just as the true Christian asks day in and day out: am I serving myself, or am I serving God?

I fully agree that the wish to live longer is self-interested; but where did I ever say that that was the goal? I didn't. But longevity, and a "younger" life in old age, is often a side-effect, whether or not it is desired.

I have a German friend, Trudel, whom I met about 37 years ago in my Indian Ashram. She herself had been going there for many years at the time, and she became one of my closest friend and mentors. When her husband retired they went to live in a beautiful house in the Alsatian hills of France, and every summer that house was filled with visitors - friends of Trudel who just loved to be around her, usually younger people packed with the cares of the world.

Trudel turned 100 this year. She didn't want to live that long. She's been ready to move on for at least ten years, but life won't let her. She lives all alone in that house in the hills, all year round. She has no neighbours in the dead of winter. A woman comes in to cook for her and clean, but otherwise she looks after herself. She broke her hip last year and recovered. I went to visit her last summer and she was as perky and mentally alive as ever. I feel she has a long way to go still. She reads a lot, watches shows like Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and is never bored or lonely. She is truly tired of her body, but her spirit is too strong to leave.


In fact, such people do not really care whether they live or die, as dying for them is simply discardng the body.
There is no fear of death whatsoever.
.......

As for believing or not believing: I'd like to compare it to the first explorers. Imagine them sailing off into the great unknown, into stormy seas on very flimsy vessels. Returning home and speaking of exciting, exotic lands beyond the horizon.

Did others believe them, or not? Did they want to go there too, or not? It all depended on how convincing those explorers are, whether their reports of lands across the seas rang with truth, or not. There was no science, no maps, to prove the existence of such lands. You had to go there to see for yourself. If you didn't believe the reports, well that was your privilege, your choice.

(Though probably they brought back concinving souvenirs; but leave those aside for the moment)

I, in my youth, read books of a spiritual land deep within myself and beyond my own small person, reports so convincing that I burned to pieces to go there myself. So I went, and everything was confirmed -- for ME. I realise that for others (you) it might all be poppycock... and that's their (your) privilege. In truth, the only proof is indeed going there yourself. Nothing can compare with one's own experience. Belief alone would never have sufficed for me. I did find convincing evidence - for myself alone; though for those who knew me then, perhaps the enormous change in my own life might be proof enough...

A rather shallow party-girl who regularly got drunk and took drugs became a spiritual seeker, and remained that to the end of her days; and life became truly good, and exciting...

[Ruv Draba]

I see the good as an unquestionable benefit, Aruna. :D But we can create transpersonal good without the mysticism too. :) Which is not to say I want people to stop being mystical or that I even believe they can stop, or that it's devoid of benefit for some people, sometimes. It just means that I think the claims are bigger than what it can actually deliver.

[aruna]

I see the good as an unquestionable benefit, Aruna. :D But we can create transpersonal good without the mysticism too. :) Which is not to say I want people to stop being mystical or that I even believe they can stop. It's just to say that I believe it to be not merely dubious but false.

Mysticism is another word I did not use, and would not use, on account of its ambiguity; most of the stuff in that corner I also believe to be not only false, but downright dangerous... so we are again in agreement ....

I'm sure you cannot object, though, to a person's desire to know his/her mind!

[Ruv Draba]

I'm sure you cannot object, though, to a person's desire to know his/her mind!Sorry - I edited after you replied.

No... I encourage and endorse knowing oneself. Actually, I think that mysticism (I'll stick with the term, because I find it accurate) can be useful to assist that, even when it's false. I think it can also be insanely dangerous. In Australia where I live there have been two deaths recently, arising from people exploring mysticism in structured, Vedic-inspired courses. Both were self-inflicted. Both courses were led by someone who'd trained in India for decades, and organised by a business that has administered to tens of thousands of people, with a heretofore acceptable safety record. This isn't heresay; I know the folk concerned.

It's not that mysticism kills, but it does sometimes induce temporary or chronic psychoses. Some are vaguely benign, perhaps even enlightening if they're short-term and managed. Some aren't.

[aruna]

Sorry - I edited after you replied.

No... I encourage and endorse knowing oneself. Actually, I think that mysticism (I'll stick with the term, because I find it accurate) can be useful to assist that, even when it's false. I think it can also be insanely dangerous. In Australia where I live there have been two deaths recently, arising from people exploring mysticism in structured, Vedic-inspired courses. Both were self-inflicted. Both courses were led by someone who'd trained in India for decades, and organised by a business that has administered to tens of thousands of people, with a heretofore acceptable safety record. This isn't heresay; I know the folk concerned.

It's not that mysticism kills, but it does sometimes induce temporary or chronic psychoses. Some are vaguely benign, perhaps even enlightening if they're short-term and managed. Some aren't.


The trouble with the term "mysticism" is that it appears to cover everything that is even vaguely associated with spirituality. It covers the loonies and the desperadoes and the fake gurus and the people in white robes floating two meters over the earth.

Your post makes this obvious. You are absolutely right that mysticism as you call it -- from which I would exclude those few cases where spirituality is genuine -- can be extremely dangerous. I too have seen waves of people who call themselves mystics, going over the edge on their own fantasies. I've seen self-appointed gurus crawling out of the floorboards and flocking like locusts around one of the most highly respected and acknowledged (from the likes of C.J.Jung, Mahatma Gandhi, and the German physisict Cark Friedrich von Weizsaecker) centres in India, claiming the authority to lead others. It's all rubbish.

Genuine "finished" teachers are hard to find and can be counted on one hand. All of the ones I have known are dead. There might be one or two alive today, but they are not out there canvassing for attention.
You won't find them on the internet, and they are not writing books and making millions. If you could meet one of those few, Ruv, I assure you you would not dismiss everything and everyone under the one label mysticism, categorized and dismissed as false. About 98% may indeed be false. But I think if you could actually meet one or two of the greatest, you would change your mind.

The people you refer to have gone astray for specific reasons. These are usually people who have had one or two enlightening experiences (which means nothing -- so have many people, including myself) and think they are now entitled to teach the world. Instead of recognising that that experience was only the beginning, not the end. And that the path is long and difficult - and hazardous.


It is extremely perilous because as in all things the ego gets in the way, claims superiority, exalts itself... and falls flat on its face... and the owners of those egos don't even realise it. I've seen, in one case, even a genuine teacher fall from a great height; a very tragic sight. This happens when people try to teach before they are ready ... and even decades in India does not make you ready, as in the exampe you quoted. I believe you 100% as I have observed it myself, with great dismay.


There's really nothing mystical or mysterious about Advaita. It is what we are. When we are loving to others, that is Advaita; it is recognising that we are all leaves of the same tree, all one. When we are supremely happy, that is Advaita, shining through. The journey is only a matter of making that happiness and love conscious, and constant. There is no danger in that. But it does require extreme vigilance.

[semilargeintestine]

That's why I usually use the term Kabbalah instead of Jewish mysticism. "Mystic" implies all kinds of crazy stuff.

[AMCrenshaw]

I suppose that's also a philosophic problem in mystic thought -- can rational thought take a person from loving and showing compassion for- the best they can- those in closest proximity to his or her immediate life, to loving "all" and because "all" is just "one" anyway? I'm not sure it holds up, but I think that's only true to the extent logic and language run parallel and to what extent they work together. A personal belief I have is that experiences of "wholeness" -- if they exist -- would be indescribable...but these feelings of "wholeness", it's been suggested on these forums at least, could be ascribed to other psychological phenomenon. That doesn't necessarily mean these experiences are not mystical -- but it would seem that the mystical feelings of an experience are simple but intense feelings of happiness (or despair, mind you). The mystic description of these feelings have historically been fairly oblique in the realm of philosophy, and downright poetic in most realms outside of science, where mysticism doesn't really exist in this sense.


It seems also that most mystics whose work I've read have struggle with the precision of language and logic to describe sensations they have. Maybe it's the framework through which they arrive at these sensations and are incapable of seeing beneath or beyond the framework. Don't mistake the finger for the moon!


AMC

[semilargeintestine]

Kabbalah deals with the "mystical" aspect of Judaism. It's what is going on on levels higher than we can directly perceive. It has little to do with "feelings" really, although feeling connected to your fellow Jew is a superficial aspect of it. The fact that we all come from One Source doesn't negate the fact that we are individuals here. We all have free will and make individual choices, so that concept of Oneness isn't so applicable. We may come from the same Source, but we're most definitely separate beings.

Kabbalah's primary work is the Zohar, which is part of the Oral Tradition and outlines the Torah from the spiritual perspective.

[aruna]

I need to make a correction... I'm usually very particular with words so i don't know how this one slipped passed me but it's causing me sleepless nights!
A few posts back I said that Advaita "went out of fashion"... a ridiculous statement, since Advaita was ever "in fashion" in the first place, and even if it were that popular, "fashion" is not the accurate word.
In fact, in antiquity Advaita was always a secret teaching, passed on directly from master to pupil, and never widely practiced -- it was deemed too difficult for the normal person. In the mid-1950's Ramana Maharshi opened an advaitic path that could be followed by anyone at any time and opened it up for the general public. Which was great from my point of view but has led to a downright bastardisation. Tant pis!
I apologize for the confusion, though I know it doesn't bother anyone as much as it does me!

[Ruv Draba]

The trouble with the term "mysticism" is that it appears to cover everything that is even vaguely associated with spirituality.Actually, I consider spirituality to be something entirely distinct from mystical. For me, it's about our mind, our morality, our relationships, our society, our sense of purpose and meaning. By mysticism I just mean using intuition, instinct, imagination or emotional insights to try and work stuff out. Mysticism is a possible tool to understand spirituality but as I mentioned I think it's a dangerously flawed tool.

The problem with the 'real vs fake' mysticism defence is that all mysticism is ultimately unaccountable for anything it claims. It's all subjective, personal, intimate and open to ludicrous levels of self-deceit, manipulation and mendacity. Where mysticism is used to produce art I can see the benefit -- it produces some of the best art in the world. But when it's used to shape life-decisions I see too much hypocrisy and too many train-wrecks -- obviously, not in all cases but in enough cases that I feel that schools of mysticism from churches to Ashrams should be licensed and regulated just as doctors and physiotherapists are.


There's really nothing mystical or mysterious about Advaita. It is what we are. When we are loving to others, that is Advaita; it is recognising that we are all leaves of the same tree, all one. When we are supremely happy, that is Advaita, shining through. The journey is only a matter of making that happiness and love conscious, and constant. There is no danger in that. But it does require extreme vigilance.I rather enjoy religious metaphors for what you're talking about. I'm aware of it myself and I know that it's difficult to discuss outside of metaphor. On the other hand, I think that any claims for secular benefits other than peace, kindness, more compassion, and a better sense of purpose are overstated and likely fraudulent. :)

What's wrong with telling people: I can't stop you getting old. I can't stop you dying. I can't stop you grieving from losing your friends and loved ones. I can teach you how to grow by caring more, noticing more, being glad for more, and finding peace within yourself? That I can help you find fellowship and ways to make your life more meaningful, less full of regret, but this is pretty much all I can do? Because those benefits are evident and abundant. :D

[aruna]

Actually, I consider spirituality to be something entirely distinct from mystical. For me, it's about our mind, our morality, our relationships, our society, our sense of purpose and meaning. By mysticism I just mean using intuition, instinct, imagination or emotional insights to try and work stuff out. Mysticism is a possible tool to understand spirituality but as I mentioned I think it's a dangerously flawed tool.

By your definition, Advaita falls distinctly in the category "spirituality", and not "mysticism". It is ALL about the mind, understanding it and oneself, probing it to its depths, discerning between thoughts, emotions, and the witness of them all. IN fact, every single thought and emotion is observed with extreme dispassion and ultimately put aside. No intuition, imagination or emotion whatsoever is involved. It is an extremely analytical teaching; which is perhaps the reason why it attracts so many Germans, as well as scientists! It is very Zen-like.

When I use the word "mysticism", if at all, it is in the classical sense: Chrtian mystics, Sufi mystics, , Kabbalah etc. Those who go the path of devotion to God, ecstatic divine love leading to union. I am very much attracted to this aspect of spirituality and some poems and hymns can bring tears to my eyes -- but it is far removed from Advaita. The two, however, easily complement each other.

You may have heard that Yoga has three branches: Love (Bhakti), Actiona (Karma) and KNowledge (Jnana). Advaita falls cleanly into the last category. A realised Adbaitin is called a Jnani. But there are few and faw between.

On the other hand, I think that any claims for secular benefits other than peace, kindness, more compassion, and a better sense of purpose are overstated and likely fraudulent. :)
Again, I would love for you to meet a true Jnani, and see if you would call him/her fraudulent! Let's say

What's wrong with telling people: I can't stop you getting old. I can't stop you dying. I can't stop you grieving from losing your friends and loved ones. I can teach you how to grow by caring more, noticing more, being glad for more, and finding peace within yourself?That I can help you find fellowship and ways to make your life more meaningful, less full of regret,

Nothing whatsoever. Those are good teachings.

but this is pretty much all I can do? Because those benefits are evident and abundant. :D[

What if you are hungry for more, though? What if you want no less than union with God, and cannot bear the separation? Common-or-garden kindness and caring do not satisfy such a hunger.
Thus a mystic (in the classical sense) is born!

[Ruv Draba]

What if you are hungry for more, though? What if you want no less than union with God, and cannot bear the separation? Common-or-garden kindness and caring do not satisfy such a hunger.
Thus a mystic (in the classical sense) is born!Some are born with a weakness for alcohol. Others love to gamble. Some want rapture, transport and transcendence. I try to be compassionate in all cases. For all that we might delight in it, not everything we want is good for us. :D

[aruna]

Some are born with a weakness for alcohol. Others want rapture, transport and transcendence. I try to be compassionate in both cases. For all that we might delight in it, not everything we want is good for us. :D

A bit condescending, no? Do you feel compassion for Saint Francis, Mahatma Gandhi, Rumi and the like, all of whom were motivated by an intense hunger for God?

It's true that some, are destructive. The intense desire for God, on the other hand, is that which heals. (Even from alcoholism and drug addiction; speaking only for myself.)

[Ruv Draba]

A bit condescending, no?A bit flippant, but kindly-meant and serious too. Mysticism frequently substitutes for more dangerous kinds of narcissistic escapism -- obviously, it's a better alternative than drugs, gambling etc... unless it drives one psychotic, but I still see it -- especially in its obsessive forms -- as being of the same ilk. I'm not simply saying this from theory or prejudice, Aruna. I have a lot of friends into personal development of the mystic variety. I've made my own assessment . Obviously though, it doesn't necessarily apply to others.
Do you feel compassion for Saint Francis, Mahatma Gandhi, Rumi and the like, all of whom were motivated by an intense hunger for God?Gandhi wrecked his marriage and it's said, slept naked next to his niece to test himself, so... yes, in general I try and have compassion for mystical idealists -- even more for their loved-ones whose lives they so often screw up. I also have respect for them -- they often do things that nobody else would dare to try. :D Then again Adolph Hitler was also idealistic and mystical. When I'm not respecting idealistic mystics or feeling compassion for them, or being irritated at trying to get some practical work from them, they terrify me. :)

The intense desire for God, on the other hand, is that which heals. (Even from alcoholism and drug addiction; speaking only for myself.)Actually I think the healing comes from discipline, improved self-esteem and more compassion for others. Neither God nor yearning are strictly necessary. But as I said, mystical escapism is better than many of the alternatives. I still want to see every priest, guru and life-coach licensed and held to ethical standards (unless they put 'entertainer' on their tax form instead).

[aruna]

A bit flippant, but kindly-meant and serious too.

It doesn't strike me at all as kindle, though certainly, form your POV, serious.
Since the love of God for those who make that choice is almosty invariably synonymous with living a better, more ethical and compassionate life it can hardly be called kind to compare it to alcohol, drug and gambling addiction!
:D Then again Adolph Hitler was also idealistic and mystical.
There! You have evoked

GODWIN'S LAW!!!!


Actually I think the healing comes from discipline, improved self-esteem and more compassion for others. Neither God nor yearning are strictly necessary.
Not necessary, true. But for many, the turn to spirituality has brought healing, directly. The self-discipline, self esteem etc followed on from that turn. It's like turning to the sun; first you turn, then you feel warm.
It's a pity that you take the many negative examples you have known of people people going astray (and I'm sure I've known far more than you!) as the proof that it is all fake.
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMO.

As for certifying spiritual leaders: a good idea, but who is to do the certifying? Sarlo, with his Guru Ratings, (http://www.globalserve.net/%7Esarlo/RatingsR.htm) gives it a try but I would subtract at least three-quarters, if not more, of those he lists as "The Greats".

ETA: where on earth did you hear that Gandhi wrecked his marriage? That is nonsense. Also, there is nothing nasty per se about his sleeping next to his nieces; Gandhi was a practitioner of Brahmacharya, celibacy. He wanted to be sure that even in sleep, he was free of sexual urges. I can assure you that "nothing happened!"

[Ruv Draba]

It doesn't strike me at all as kindle, though certainly, form your POV, serious.I'm a rationalist. Candid and thoughtful is how we do 'kind'. We don't do agreeable for its own sake, and we don't gloss disagreements even if they're displeasing. But that has nothing to do with how kindly I think of you. It hadn't come up in conversation yet, but I've been privately thinking 'Sixty and hanging out in India. Scary, brave and cool. Getting over drugs and exploring the self. Go Aruna!' :D

None of which means that I agree with you about the validity of a faith which includes halting of mental ageing as one of its claims. I don't see it as benign or even ethical to make such a claim without scientific proof.
Since the love of God for those who make that choice is almosty invariably synonymous with living a better, more ethical and compassionate life it can hardly be called kind to compare it to alcohol, drug and gambling addiction!That really depends on the god which one loves and how one goes about loving.

There! You have evoked GODWIN'S LAW!!!!Not for rhetorical purposes. I've stated before in this forum that idealists are a dangerous bunch, and idealist mystics even more so. Sub out Adolph and replace with Grigori Rasputin if you prefer.

The self-discipline, self esteem etc followed on from that turn.I don't equate feeling better with healing. However it makes a nice holiday and that can prepare one for the hard work necessary to heal and grow. Or, one may prefer stay on the holiday and not worry about the hard work -- some do.
It's a pity that you take the many negative examples you have known of people people going astray (and I'm sure I've known far more than you!) as the proof that it is all fake.Actually, what makes mysticism fake to me is the fraudulence, not the lack of occasional benefit. There's nothing in principal to stop mysticism from being ethical in the secular sense of the word. It just needs to subject any material claims to scientific proof before it teaches them, and present non-material claims as inspirations rather than truths. It's just very rare to find mysticism that doesn't over-reach its own competence and authority. I also find that people who are obsessively mystical tend also to be narcissistic and self-deluded. That's just personal experience. I acknowledge that there could be exceptions.

As for certifying spiritual leaders: a good idea, but who is to do the certifying?It's a cunning myth that theological expertise/proprietary methodology renders clerics and gurus beyond accountability to anyone but themselves. Doctors are accountable for their rigor, transparency, for visibly working in the client's interests and for their impacts. It's not hard to shape policy that would make clerics and life-coaches equally accountable. A hint is that qualification has nothing to do with theological expertise or certification in proprietary methodology and everything to do with secular competence and ethical conduct.

where on earth did you hear that Gandhi wrecked his marriage?He largely abandoned his wife, and I don't mean simply sexually. He failed to provide fathering to his children, treated his wife like a follower and at the end of Kasturba's life, denied her penicillin because it required injecting. Essentially he decided when it was time for her to die. I'm not saying that he didn't love her or that she was not the dutiful Indian wife. I'm saying that he was driven by cause and ideology, had a paternalistic guru-view of her and neglected her as a person.
Also, there is nothing nasty per se about his sleeping next to his nieces; Gandhi was a practitioner of Brahmacharya, celibacy. He wanted to be sure that even in sleep, he was free of sexual urges. I can assure you that "nothing happened!"I'm not saying that it did, but it was narcissistically inappropriate to treat his niece as a test. Psychosexual experimentation by an adult on young family-members is unethical by any standard for numerous reasons. It further bespeaks his attitude to the women of his family -- followers in his self-appointed guruhood. I respect what he did; just not how he treated his family. As benign and sincere as he was, the man was narcissist and probably never realised it. It triggers my compassion because that is not what he was trying to be.

[semilargeintestine]

I find it a bit more than disturbing that you equate religion and mysticism with alcoholism and gambling addiction. That is quite offensive. I'm sure what you probably meant was someone who applies strict rules and practices upon themselves to the point of self-infliction, e.g., flagellation. But there is a bit of condescension in there.

[aruna]

[QUOTE]None of which means that I agree with you about the validity of a faith which includes halting of mental ageing as one of its claims. I don't see it as benign or even ethical to make such a claim without scientific proof.
You've not understood. The "halting of mental ageing" is not any claim I've made. I;ve said that there is something in the human mind that is independent of mental aging, and that can be accessed at all times, by any person, who so puts his or her mind to it. The mental aging continues; I've admitted to this myself! Ummm... what was i saying....?

What I think you need to do Ruv, as you sound very sincere in all your posts, is to hang out with some really, really cool people, classical mystics if you like, (who ar emostly, unfortunately, all dead) and see how your theories stand up there. I am not nearly cool enough, but thanks for the thumbs up anyway!
(But.. but... what makes me scary?)


He largely abandoned his wife, and I don't mean simply sexually. He failed to provide fathering to his children, treated his wife like a follower and at the end of Kasturba's life, denied her penicillin because it required injecting.

She herself asked not to be treated. She asked to be allowed to go. The penicillin would not have saved her life.

As for neglect... this was a Hindu marriage, remember, and not to be compared with a modern Western marriage. Different rules would apply. The kind of personal attention and pampering a modern wife would demand is not desired. For all you know, she was perfectly happy with the way things were.

[aruna]

I find it a bit more than disturbing that you equate religion and mysticism with alcoholism and gambling addiction. That is quite offensive. I'm sure what you probably meant was someone who applies strict rules and practices upon themselves to the point of self-infliction, e.g., flagellation. But there is a bit of condescension in there.

QFT.



That really depends on the god which one loves and how one goes about loving.

I think I've made it quite clear, again and again, and with much patience, that I agree that there are many, too many frauds playing a spiritual game and I discern categorically between the one and the other. For you to argue with "it depends which god" seems to me deliberate ignorance of everything I've argued up to now.

Not for rhetorical purposes. I've stated before in this forum that idealists are a dangerous bunch, and idealist mystics even more so. Sub out Adolph and replace with Grigori Rasputin if you prefer.

Godwin's Law is never for rhetorical purposes; it just inevitably slips out. In this case, it was, "see what strange bedfellows you have, nya, nya nya!"
And still it was Godwin's Law.

You've obviously done a great deal of research on fake teachers and the disasters that can result out of their falsehoods. A healthy scepticism is always good. But I suggest you extend your research to include teachers of a higher calibre and impeccable reputation. I've mentioned some names here. That's a start.

[ColoradoGuy]

You've obviously done a great deal of research on fake teachers and the disasters that can result out of their falsehoods. A healthy scepticism is always good. But I suggest you extend your research to include teachers of a higher calibre and impeccable reputation. I've mentioned some names here. That's a start.
Agreed. Ruv, history certainly has had its share of people, posing as mystics (or even by their own lights actual mystics), who are charlatans and poseurs. But this is not universal, as you now and then, apparently grudgingly, allow to be the case. Rather than, in effect, scolding them for being so silly, or inconsistent, or whatever, I suggest you simply try to understand why they believe what they do. You might even grant that they might have some insights that you do not have. I do trust that you are, in your mind, being fair-minded and open. But I have to say that you sometimes come across as casting yourself the only clear-thinking adult in the room.

[AMCrenshaw]

But if you look at those mystics who are not charlatans, I think overwhelmingly you find they are not intolerant people incapable of criticizing themselves or leaders of their own traditions (Thomas Merton wasn't a charlatan, I don't think. And he is imo one of the most compassionate, rational, challenging Catholic thinkers -- that I can recall at least; and he criticized and questioned his church to a great extent). That what makes them good "mystics" would make them simply good "humans".

Nor do I think that scientists or secular humans are fully protected against fraud. But I cannot blame that on science or secular humanism.


AMC

[semilargeintestine]

So are you saying that there is no such thing as a good mystic, because all good mystics are just good people?

[Ruv Draba]

I find it a bit more than disturbing that you equate religion and mysticism with alcoholism and gambling addiction.I didn't equate it to addiction. I said that I had the same compassion for mysticism that I have for people who have a weakness for alcohol and gambling. I don't attach stigma to those things, but I see them as functionally similar.

For some people a desire for alcohol is a desire to feel peace, to feel joy, to feel connected with one another. It's an understandable desire and the only real problem with it is that in large and regular doses, alcohol is toxic, damaging body and mind. It's also toxic socially because it leads to behaviour that damages trust, weakens responsibility.

For some people a desire to gamble is a desire to feel excitement, ecstasy, power, control. It's an understandable desire because our world is full of fear and half-hearted steps. The only real problem with gambling is that if we exceed our means it's socially toxic.

Alcohol and gambling are escapes but they're based on real human needs. People can enjoy them in moderation but if they throw themselves out of balance then they ruin their lives and the lives of those around them.

I feel that mysticism is based on the same innate needs as desires for alcohol or gambling -- desires for peace, excitement, ecstasy, connectedness, power, control. I've said from the outset that I think mysticism is potentially beneficial in moderation but potentially dangerous and my comment was in response to Aruna's question what if you must connect with God? My answer: as with alcohol and gambling I think that if it's a compulsion then it's potentially toxic to mind and relationships. It's also interesting to see how many drinkers and gamblers subsequently find satisfaction in mysticism. One explanation is that mysticism 'cures' them, but another is that it's a substitute.

The real problem here isn't my commentary, I think. It's taboos. Mysticism is considered sacred; alcohol and gambling are considered profane. But sacredness is formed by taboo. It's taboo to critique mysticism. I'm a bad person if I do it, worthy of censure. Mystical people are sacred people; I can't critique their psychology, explore their motives. They have to be selfless, right? Because they're mystical.

No, they don't have to be selfless. One can be benign and yet very selfish in some respects. That I think describes Gandhi very well. He's one of my favourite historical figures, and we're a much better world that he lived, but at heart I think he was an unrelentingly selfish man.

I've said that there is something in the human mind that is independent of mental aging, and that can be accessed at all times, by any person, who so puts his or her mind to it.This discussion developed because you wanted me to agree that this particular claim would surely pass my skeptic's test. My response is: please demonstrate with Alzheimer's patients, brain trauma patients. If you can show any sort of recovered function in the face of organic damage and neurological deterioration, and if it works at least as well as ordinary therapies then I'll agree that it passes my skeptic's test. If there's no such demonstration then it goes in my 'mysticism' basket.


What I think you need to do Ruv, as you sound very sincere in all your posts, is to hang out with some really, really cool people, classical mysticsJam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today. :)

(But.. but... what makes me scary?)Your gentle but inexorable pressure that I must conform to your thinking. :heart:

She herself asked not to be treated. She asked to be allowed to go. The penicillin would not have saved her life.In the versions I've read she thought her death was inevitable, but Gandhi didn't consult her on treatment.

As for neglect... this was a Hindu marriage, remember, and not to be compared with a modern Western marriage.I have Hindu friends and have discussed marriage at length. I didn't suggest that pampering was required. I think he abandoned her and his children emotionally and socially.

I agree that there are many, too many fraudsI've already agreed that it's possible for mysticism to be ethical in my eyes. I've explained what the bar is. You're welcome to say that I have the wrong bar, or to supply one that jumps it. Chucking rocks at the ones who don't doesn't put us in agreement.

Godwin's Law is never for rhetorical purposes; it just inevitably slips out. In this case, it was, "see what strange bedfellows you have, nya, nya nya!"Well, it doesn't take Adolph to show that mystics have strange bedfellows. :) I used him to show how readily mysticism can turn benign into malign. I also used the example to illustrate that intensity of conviction is not the same as truth. This is also one of the few forums where I'd feel comfortable using that example. People here tend to think and not just react.

Ruv, history certainly has had its share of people, posing as mystics (or even by their own lights actual mystics), who are charlatans and poseurs. But this is not universal, as you now and then, apparently grudgingly, allow to be the case. Rather than, in effect, scolding them for being so silly, or inconsistent, or whatever, I suggest you simply try to understand why they believe what they do.I can't feel as mystics feel, CG -- my empathy is limited at the best of times, and I effect it by modelling behaviour rather than sharing emotions. So ecstasy and emotional inspiration aren't on my mental palette. But I have a strong behavioural model for mysticism and it's based on my best delvings into our current psychological knowledge. I think it's a better account of how mystics operate than most mystics themselves give.

The sincerity or benign intentions of mystics are not at question for me. Neither are their courage, their inspiration or the benefits that mystics bring. It's just the ethics, clarity and accountability that are of concern.

You might even grant that they might have some insights that you do not have.I've granted that more than once. E.g. here, in my recent reply to Gehanna:
Such minds are fairly rare, but a critical part of the human tapestry. They give us inspiration and deep thought about relationships and morality. If they don't adopt a religion they'll often invent one. They notice stuff that nobody else sees and come up with beautiful ways to describe and define it. [...]
The rationalist's thinking is generally more valid, because 'validity' is a rational term. But the mystic's thinking is often 'gooder' -- if by gooder we mean stretching beyond the good we can do today to find new, unthought-of goods, or trying harder to do goods that are just hard to do.

I have to say that you sometimes come across as casting yourself the only clear-thinking adult in the room.Inevitably in a forum like this many people will want to talk religion from perspectives of passion and inspiration. My interests in religion run to tolerance, society, clarity, accuracy and ethics. Which is not to say that the passion and inspiration aren't important too, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that I'm not the guy to talk to about such things. :)

what makes them good "mystics" would make them simply good "humans".At no point have I said that mystics are bad people, or even that mysticism is bad. I've said that I think obsessive mysticism is potentially toxic, that mystics can be dangerous and that I'd like to see mystical teachers registered the way that we register other professionals, and held to standards of competence and ethics.

Nor do I think that scientists or secular humans are fully protected against fraud. But I cannot blame that on science or secular humanism.I'd also like to see scientists and secular teachers registered and held to standards of competence and ethics.

Oh wait... They already are. :tongue
So are you saying that there is no such thing as a good mystic, because all good mystics are just good people?Plenty of mystics are good people, but that doesn't make them sacred. For some it might be taboo to criticise Gandhi, but not to me. Gandhi's paternalistic attitude around the home is a reflection of his character, but that doesn't deny the good he did for India and for human thought.

[AMCrenshaw]

My whole understanding of mysticism seems to be different than that of everyone here.



I'll leave it at that (how very brave of me :)).




For some it might be taboo to criticise Gandhi, but not to me. Gandhi's paternalistic attitude around the home is a reflection of his character, but that doesn't deny the good he did for India and for human thought.

Right no one's perfectly ethical and yet most people are expected to be held to a certain level of ethics, why not these people. I'm fine with that. I don't know what you'd have in mind (for example who would monitor the ethics who don't already?). Since we mentioned yoga somewhere around here, in the US (at least in PA, NY, NJ)yoga instructors (or masters, yoginis, Teachers, etc) have to be licensed and are held to the same standard ethics as public school teachers (including preliminary background checks, to boot). That's one mystical (sometimes it's NRM-ish. I've listened to a few speeches at this one place that I felt like I was being sold something) sector.

I work at another, the YMCA, whose goal is to uphold Judeo-Christian principles, which, they state, builds healthy body, spirit, and mind. They hold church services on Sundays and have a regular pastor who communes with God. Because the YMCA runs like a business I wonder whether or not all the employees are held to the same standards of ethics. I know what the rules are for me, and they're pretty clear and straightforward and am sure of being fired for acting outside that code.

Then there's the Catholic Worker houses, some I know are run by mystics. They operate well and maybe some of the most ethically in tune people I've ever met personally.


AMC

[Ruv Draba]

I'll leave it at that (how very brave of me :)).Not forever, I hope. :D

Right no one's perfectly ethical and yet most people are expected to be held to a certain level of ethics, why not these people. I'm fine with that.Yes, but it's much more than that. These people are telling other people how to live, what food to eat, what medicines to take, how many children to have, how to deal with traumas, how to organise their families, whom to have sex with and how and when. From any humanitarian perspective, the ethical implications of this are enormous and I don't think they can be swept away by saying 'I'm magic' or 'This is sacred'. Spiritual teachers should meet minimum competence in understanding what evidence is, and in knowing their subjects from a secular and not just a sectarian perspective. They should be accountable for what they teach, and for any material harm that may do -- especially when they exercise psychological or sociological pressure, or try to remove informed consent.

[AMCrenshaw]

Did you read the rest? Two groups that do essentially what you said: what food to eat, what medicines to take, how many children to have, how to deal with traumas, how to organise their families, whom to have sex with and how and when

Yoga gurus as much as the YMCA directors, in different ways and about different things, of course.


They are held accountable for their actions from what I can tell, even from within the circles of leadership. Those that aren't should be. Sounds good.



AMC

[Ruv Draba]

Did you read the rest?I read it but couldn't evaluate it because I don't know what standards of competence are set, how they're checked, what ethical accountabilities are held, to whom they are held, how accountabilities are audited. It's easy -- too easy -- to build ineffective frames for performance management, and a little harder to build good ones.

I'd say that in general, I think that competence is set too low, the accountability is directed toward interest-groups rather than those who are served and the auditing is largely non-existent. That mightn't apply in your cases, AMC. It depends a lot on the community too. Size, smarts, purpose, values, practices...

Given how much confusion there was over my 'mysticism potentially toxic' comments, I'm not sure how much of this is making sense.

[AMCrenshaw]

I'd say that in general, I think that competence is set too low, the accountability is directed toward interest-groups rather than those who are served and the auditing is largely non-existent. That mightn't apply in your cases, AMC. It depends a lot on the community too. Size, smarts, purpose, values, practices...

Yeah I'm giving you anecdotes and you're giving me in general. I see your point, and I imagine this part of the conversation might turn back to a thread you've already created, concerning "freedom of religion".


AMC

[Ruv Draba]

Yeah I'm giving you anecdotes and you're giving me in general. I see your point, and I imagine this part of the conversation might turn back to a thread you've already created, concerning "freedom of religion".I'd also feel loathe to evaluate a whole ethical framework at arm's length -- so even if we went into detail I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting. Ethical frameworks need to work with the strengths and weaknesses of the community. There's no point counting pens in the stationery cupboard when nobody steals.

That's not to say that ethical values themselves can wander. A religion should be about the safety, dignity, respect, harmony and fulfillment of its adherents or it's a sham. But how that translates into action and accountability could vary a lot. In religions where adherents are encouraged to question and disagree, the community itself can manage most of its ethics. In religions where speaking up is taboo I think there needs to be more external secular concern.

[AMCrenshaw]

But back to reincarnation, I think there is a, perhaps unintentional, spiritual element to what you're saying. That, from my perspective at least, the spirit is a thing one creates as well as finds; it's a thing that changes. We also find it can be manipulated.

This is something of the way I think about how reincarnation within the spiritual teacher student relationship should work, though, frankly it doesn't always:



like that one story, when a family living in a hut discovers a tree growing through the dirt in their floor. Eventually the tree becomes too large for the hut to contain it, and the family swiftly decides to cut a hole in the roof so it can reach the sky. Later, when they can afford to, they move out of the hut and each go their own way.



AMC

[Ruv Draba]

But back to reincarnation, I think there is a, perhaps unintentional, spiritual element to what you're saying. That, from my perspective at least, the spirit is a thing one creates as well as finds; it's a thing that changes. We also find it can be manipulated.I'm all about the spirituality -- I just can't necessarily persuade anyone here that I am. In my secular and non-mystical view, spirit is mind, morality, relationships, purpose. Some of it is born to us, some passed to us, some found by us, some grown by us, some perhaps stolen from us, some passed on by us... Eventually it's lost to us.

What's the meaning? Whatever you like, but I just object to folk telling me that a tree is a bus-stop. Sure, it could be a bus-stop but first show me the tyre-tracks of the bus. If there aren't any tracks then it's just a tree, and there are lots of ways to appreciate a tree without decorating it with the logo of an imaginary bus-company. :)

[aruna]

My answer: as with alcohol and gambling I think that if it's a compulsion then it's potentially toxic to mind and relationships. It's also interesting to see how many drinkers and gamblers subsequently find satisfaction in mysticism. One explanation is that mysticism 'cures' them, but another is that it's a substitute.

According to Advaita the compulsion is to simply BE what one really is. Nothing mystical in that.


This discussion developed because you wanted me to agree that this particular claim would surely pass my skeptic's test. My response is: please demonstrate with Alzheimer's patients, brain trauma patients. If you can show any sort of recovered function in the face of organic damage and neurological deterioration, and if it works at least as well as ordinary therapies then I'll agree that it passes my skeptic's test. If there's no such demonstration then it goes in my 'mysticism' basket.

Again, I never spoke of a "recovered" function. It takes long years, decades even, of intense practice to access the function of which I speak. You can't just go to an Alzheimer's patient and ask them to find it. It requires the will and the strength to turn the mind to an inner source, and that is only possible in a healthy mind.

What you are doing, Ruv, is putting words into my mouth, interpreting everything I say to fit it into into your own pre-conceived theory . I think that's a result of your tendency to believe you already "know" what a person means, to jump to conclusions and then run with them. I'd watch that tendency if I were you. It is not rational.



Your gentle but inexorable pressure that I must conform to your thinking. :heart:

Not at all. I am asking you to not misinterpret my words. That is all. Not once have you listend properly, because always your next statement is a complete shambles; you cannot be clear in your arguments unless you know what you are discussing.

I see this forum as a place to exchange ideas and discuss each other's chosen philosophy, religion, etc. I don't know much about Kabbalah but have always been intrigued by it, so I am glad that semi is here. I can learn, as well as do what I can to describe me own practice for those who ar einterested. It's not always easy, putting into words matters which are, in effect, not decribable by words. But it takes an open and neutral mind to first listen, and only then to question. You are critisizing before you have all the facts. Again, that is not rational. It is a kind of youthful megalomania...

A discussion is impossible with someone who does not listen and already thinks he has all the answers, which is how you come across.

In the versions I've read she thought her death was inevitable, but Gandhi didn't consult her on treatment.
I know people who knew Gandhi. She did not want to live. If I was so ill I did not want to live I hope that my love ones would do whatever they could to reject treatment that could only prolong my suffering. He did what he thought was best.

I have Hindu friends and have discussed marriage at length. I didn't suggest that pampering was required. I think he abandoned her and his children emotionally and socially.


Anyone who is married to an activist for social change knows that there are none of the personal rewards usually expected in a marriage. It goes with the territory. The goal is a bigger one than one's own little problems and safety. In this case, Kasturba joined him in his struggle and stayed at his side thorugh thick and thin. I would imagine that as a Hindu wife she was one heart and one soul with him in his goal; in such a momentous struggle all the emotions are gathered up into the larger picture. I doubt that she would share your assessment of her family, and frankly you are in no position to judge.

I personally know, and am the appointed biographer (one day!) of, a woman in just such a position - Janet Jagan, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/30/janet-jagan-guyana-america-marxist) one-time President of my country, who died earlier this year. She married the leading political revolutionary in my country and was at his side in all his struggles. They had two children, who obviously did not get the attention normal children get in family life. I know those children; they are of my generation, and they grew up to be extremely well-adjusted adults proud beyond belief of what their parents did for the country. They protect and preserve their parents legacy. I'm sure they were neglected in some ways; I know at one stage they had to be evacuated because their parents' lives, and their own, were threatened. One was sent to Barbados, one to the USA. How TERRIBLE for them, you might say? But it's all part of growing up in such a family. A cozy family life flies out the window, in its place comes the privilege of being close to history, and having an unusual story to tell.

Not forever, I hope. :D

Yes, but it's much more than that. These people are telling other people how to live, what food to eat, what medicines to take, how many children to have, how to deal with traumas, how to organise their families, whom to have sex with and how and when. .

"These people". There you go again! FYI a teacher of Advaita does none of those things. He or she teaches meditation and that is all. The student is left to live his or her life as he or she finds fit, in accordance with his or her practice.

[Ruv Draba]

Thank you for your contributions Aruna. I have been listening. I understand that my opinions are unacceptable to you. Thank you however for what you've told and explained. Please feel free to explain as much more as you wish. I may well read it but I shall not reply. Congratulations too on your biography commission. I have a friend who's an historian and a biographer and I think you certainly have enough passion for the task. :)

[semilargeintestine]

I didn't equate it to addiction. I said that I had the same compassion for mysticism that I have for people who have a weakness for alcohol and gambling. I don't attach stigma to those things, but I see them as functionally similar.

Really? I see no compassion here, just a comparison.

Mysticism frequently substitutes for more dangerous kinds of narcissistic escapism -- obviously, it's a better alternative than drugs, gambling etc... unless it drives one psychotic, but I still see it -- especially in its obsessive forms -- as being of the same ilk.


Plenty of mystics are good people, but that doesn't make them sacred. For some it might be taboo to criticise Gandhi, but not to me. Gandhi's paternalistic attitude around the home is a reflection of his character, but that doesn't deny the good he did for India and for human thought.

That was directed at AMC, not you; however, sacred is a relative term. I don't think a Kabbalist is necessarily sacred. The Torah tells us that the first born males of every species is sacred, and so I believe that the first born child who is a (Jewish) male is sacred. Other than that, I apply the term mostly to holy objects or things.

[Ruv Draba]

Really? I see no compassion here, just a comparison.Yes, really. I think it's pointless to explain Semi, because we have very different views about what rules and customs are for. We also have very different views about authority and status.
That was directed at AMC, not you; however, sacred is a relative term. I don't think a Kabbalist is necessarily sacred.Mystics don't have to be seen as sacred, but many are. I think that teachers are more accountable if they're not treated as sacred -- which is not the same as saying that they don't deserve respect and dignity.

[semilargeintestine]

Yes, really. I think it's pointless to explain Semi, because we have very different views about what rules and customs are for. We also have very different views about authority and status.

Rules and customs have nothing to do with it. You made a statement and then tried to add in something after when you realized that it seemed insensitive. There's no indication of compassion at all in that post, and aruna seems to agree with me.


Mystics don't have to be seen as sacred, but many are. I think that teachers are more accountable if they're not treated as sacred -- which is not the same as saying that they don't deserve respect and dignity.

I agree with this 100%. I would also say that the people who are truly holy do not want to be considered sacred. When G-d approached Moses with the task of being the leader of the Jewish people, he told Him to find someone else because he wasn't up for it. That's holiness.

[dadburnett]

The other thread got closed before I got an answer.

I am interested in what other faiths believe as far as reincarnation goes. Orthodox Judaism believes very strongly in it, but I'm not sure if it is the same as in other faiths. I assumed it was until someone mentioned that there are different types of reincarnation depending on the belief system. I am ignorant to any of them except my own faith's, so I'm looking for some enlightenment. :)
I remember readcing in the Talmud that the "world would not end" until after the "last soul" came down to earth ... I wonder how that squares with what you say Orthodox Judaism believes about reincarnation; would'nt reincarnation just prolong things?

[Ruv Draba]

You made a statement and then tried to add in something after when you realized that it seemed insensitive.I edit around 80% of my posts, and am rather compulsive about it because I'm particular about grammar and meaning. You're not my judge, Semi. Questioning my word and my compassion is beneath you.

I would also say that the people who are truly holy do not want to be considered sacred.On a side-note I was reading this week about the Kumari goddesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanya_Punhi) of Kathmandu who are chosen as girls and serve until menarche, worshipped by both the Hindus and Buddhists of Nepal. They're pretty much locked up for their whole childhood, and until recently received virtually no education. Sometimes sacred comes at a very high price.

[semilargeintestine]

I remember readcing in the Talmud that the "world would not end" until after the "last soul" came down to earth ... I wonder how that squares with what you say Orthodox Judaism believes about reincarnation; would'nt reincarnation just prolong things?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. We're not worried about the end of the world. The world is set on a 7,000 year calendar. 2,000 years of emptiness (of Torah), 2,000 years of Torah, 2,000 years of Talmud/wisdom, and then a final 1,000 years of holiness and tranquility. The last thousand years are referred to as Olam Haba--the World to Come. That will come about once Moshiach comes, and while there is a set time that he will definitely come (the Jewish year 6,000), he could come earlier if we warrant it.

I edit around 80% of my posts, and am rather compulsive about it because I'm particular about grammar and meaning. You're not my judge, Semi. Questioning my word and my compassion is beneath you.

Oh, I'm not judging you. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that I'm sure you didn't mean what it seemed like you were saying. If you say one thing that someone misunderstands, I've got you beat by 99. :)


On a side-note I was reading this week about the Kumari goddesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanya_Punhi) of Kathmandu who are chosen as girls and serve until menarche, worshipped by both the Hindus and Buddhists of Nepal. They're pretty much locked up for their whole childhood, and until recently received virtually no education. Sometimes sacred comes at a very high price.

Yeah, that's happened in a few cultures. Very unfortunate, though I'm sure they're taught that it's an honor or something.

[aruna]

Thank you for your contributions Aruna. I have been listening. I understand that my opinions are unacceptable to you. Thank you however for what you've told and explained. Please feel free to explain as much more as you wish. I may well read it but I shall not reply. Congratulations too on your biography commission. I have a friend who's an historian and a biographer and I think you certainly have enough passion for the task. :)

Thank you Rv, and I hope that doesn't mean you have put me on ignore!
BTW you have overestimated my age... I am not 60. I have EXACTLY two years to go! I think they will be pretty interesting years....

Semi, to get back to the thread subject, I did you a disfavour by answering you question on the Hindu view on reincarnation with a very obscure, minority teaching.

In mainstream Hinduism, reincarnation is simply your basic "you reap what you sow" in action. It's intricately entwined with the teaching on karma, whereby our past acts come back to haunt us. It's our task to make good by acting with love, compassion and patience in evey situation that comes our way; otherwise our past misdeeds recur again and again, until we have corrected ourselves. We build up a reertoire or talents, characteristics, compulsions along the way; this explains the differences in disposition, talent etc.

A bit like Groundhog Day, but throughout this and many lives!
The cycle of birth and rebirth comes to an end when we have dissolved all karma and thus freed ourselves of it, at which time we return to our spiritual source.

I like the idea, since it explains so many things. Why was Mozart a genius? Who do some, mediocre, writers achieve immediate and overwhelming success, whereas others struggle on for years -- even if their work might be better? Why are some born wealthy, lucky, privileged, others hounded by bad luck? And ultiumately it's not the situation itself that counts, but our reaction and handling of it.

Now, let's hope this posts befoe the AW outage!

[deathwizard]

It's no big deal. Learning is always a good thing. :)

I'm still interested in the concept of reincarnation in Buddhism and Hinduism if anyone is familiar with those religions.

I'm a Buddhist in the Theravada tradition. For a great book that could teach you a lot (and also offer great psychological fodder for anyone's writing), try this:

http://www.amazon.com/Mindfulness-Plain-English-Updated-Expanded/dp/0861713214/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254450826&sr=8-1

By the way, I applaud your curiosity and open-mindedness. It's rare.

In the Theravada tradition (which claims to be the closest to the Buddha's original teachings), reincarnation is more often referred to as rebirth. In Buddhism, rebirth is part of the continuous process of change. We are reborn not only at the time of death, but in each and every moment. If we also look at the mind, we find that mental states also perish and are replaced by new states.

Rather than a belief in the soul, Buddhists believe that a person is made up of constantly changing thoughts, feelings and perceptions. At death, these are re-established in a new body.

This is a very basic way of putting it, but it's a start.

[semilargeintestine]

That's an interesting concept. That reminds me of American Beauty, where it seems like the afterlife is really just a collection of memories and thoughts--almost like an eternal unconscious dream-state.

[small axe]

We are forbidden from using the name of G-d carelessly. Since G-d is one of His names (albeit in translation), I take out the "o" out of respect. As far as Chr-stianity and Jes-s go, we are forbidden from writing the names of false gods, etc. Not everyone follows either of these, but most Orthodox Jews will at least take the "o" out of G-d.

Well, still off topic, but from a thread that's hit the snooze button and is slumbering, so permit me to re-comment ... :)

And in the spirit of your comment --

Learning is always a good thing. :)


You're perfectly welcome to drop the "o" in G-d and the "i" in Christianity and the "u" in Jesus ... but the explanation probably wouldn't fall under a rule of their being 'false gods' would it?

"Jesus" is the name of a human being, Scripturally a "fully human" person. I hear it was a common Jewish name of that time (well, Y'shua or whatever the original Jewish name would be, that "Jesus" is Latinized into etc)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a MUSLIM would be under the same taboo of not writing false gods ... and I believe they use the name Jesus (though as a Prophet, still as a human)

I've never even heard it said that "Christ" is a "name" of G-D ... it's a Greek form of the Hebrew word "messiah" (obviously, you'd know far more of the topic and language than I would, so I don't pretend to instruct you on that)

But is the "messiah" ever meant to be considered a kind of G-D? I've never heard that suggested.

Again, I respect your traditions and your traditions of spelling.

But I wonder if the explanation that "Christ" or "Jesus" are to be avoided as being names of "false gods" is ... (I don't mean undue sarcasm) accurate 'learning'

Learning is always a good thing. :)


I'd certainly understand it if we were told that Jews refrain from writing "Christ" because they don't recognize that Jesus was the PROPERLY-IDENTIFIED or CORRECT "messiah" they were waiting for!

I just have to and do wonder aloud whether it'd be an issue of "false gods" ... especially in refraining from spelling out a mortal man's given name: Jesus.

And Scripture is pretty exact to tell us that "Jesus" was a mortal man.
He died. That was necessary.
It wasn't an alarm clock that woke him up.
That was the G-d whose name your tradition respectfully doesn't spell.

Anyway: Just wanted to comment. It's not the "topic" of the thread, but the question did arise!