On The Topic of Religion...

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 20, 2004
602
34
0
www.rapbay.com
#81
Saying you have no interest in Krishna = saying you have no interest in Veda.

Also, your attitude is as if you don't need Krishna or Jesus or etc., yet you read Garab Dorje, Krishnamurti and whoever else you've mentioned.

That is true I think it's more just what you're into... I guess i'm more attracted to whoever i mentioned because for the most part they give you an answer by not giving you an answer, and make you do the investigation yourself.. Jiddu Krishanmurti over and over would say don't believe a word i say, i want you to LOOK yourself in your own experience. UG Krishnamurti would say you're a fool and get the fuck out no matter what you brought to him and would tear people to shreds. Nisargadatta would say, the recognition that you know 'you are', before the thought "I Am" arises.. stay there and see what happens. Ramana maharshi taught in silence for the most part he wouldn't say a word but people said this radiant energy just flowed out of him and put people in this state just by being near him. But these are just things i've picked up... read... heard... seen on videos etc.

But you're exactly right the teachings of Krishna or Jesus as opposed to a teaching by Krishnamurti or Garab Dorje are no different they're both providing "answers" in their own ways for those who are searching for that answer.

And it's not that I don't need Jesus or Krishna... I think they do wonderful things for people.. but there are also organized systems of worship that tend to pop up around any of these figures and that is where being a part of 'the club' begins. And all those who don't belong to that religion are then seen as separate and are silently pitied in a certain way that is usually presented as what they think compassion is. Or they are straight up hated on. Or through ignorance as well... i was a part of a dzogchen community for a long time and I know that a lot of people in there thought of themselves as accepting people but they subconsciously were very attached to that teaching and looked down upon others who were a part of something else. It happens everywhere its just human nature. And some people aren't like that of course.

But there's no need for any of that to be any different. The extremes of everything need to exist to balance it out. Its always a full spectrum from the subtle to the raging.
 
Dec 3, 2009
2,421
48
0
44
#82
This thread is very interesting. I always like to learn more, and discover new secrets.

One thing that can sum everything up: Government and Religion were create to control us, and to not let us reach our full potential.
 
May 20, 2004
602
34
0
www.rapbay.com
#83
Alan Watts breaks it down pretty good here

and relates it using ideas from Hinduism so it relates to this conversation pretty well n9newunsixx5150 you might like this..... maybe


Alan Watts with background music: Imagine Part 1


Alan Watts with background music: Imagine Part 2
 
May 20, 2004
602
34
0
www.rapbay.com
#84
and THEN! Maya, moksha and the rest of these hindu concepts related to everyday life some more..

moksha = nirvana: translated - to despair... de-aspirate.. to breathe out... to let go... to give up the ghost.. liberation.

Alan Watts: Moksha and the transience of life.

 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#85
BOOK REVIEW (taken from Back To Godhead Magazine, #18, 1968)

The Critique
THE BOOK (ON THE TABOO AGAINST KNOWING WHO YOU ARE)
by Alan W. Watts; 148 pps. Collier Books, 95 cents.

THE BOOK purports to be a reinterpretation of Vedanta, one of the ancient Scriptures of India. This is necessarily like re-writing The Bible, and it wouldn’t be possible not to come up with at least a few solid statements of deathless value.
However, being an interpretation rather than a presentation, and being full to the brim with independent speculations, THE BOOK often fails to serve any valid purpose. In its negative principles, it does stand up well. Alan Watts does tell us quite a bit about the taboo against knowing who you are. And when he stays close to his title in this way he has something to say. It is only when he goes on to try positive concepts that he becomes elusive.
He says, for instance, that there is, after all, no reason to awaken from illusion anyway. Knowledge and ignorance, life and death, pleasure and pain are all parts of a “game”—the Game of Black-and-White—which the One Being is playing with Himself. But this would leave no reason for THE BOOK to have been written, and so Mr. Watts tells us “that it is part of ‘things taking their course’ that I write.” After which, all criticism is apparently expected to die down with a bewildered “Oh.”
But this dodge is really insufficient to justify either THE BOOK or the philosophy behind it. It is, in fact, the sort of thing one might expect to hear from a slick Uptown Swami after a clever but self-defeating lecture on Oneness, rather than from a renowned thinker of a more serious order. The idea that God, or the Absolute, or whatever, is so limited that He must create agony and stupidity to keep Himself amused—while any one of us could probably do better—is really both naive and absurd. Again, Mr. Watts advises us to remember that this is only a way of putting it, not the real thing exactly. Exactly what the real thing is he doesn’t say.
After politely leaving aside this flaw, if we plunge along into THE BOOK, we’ll come to some very nice passages in which the writer has outlined the endless complications of materialistic existence. He tells us about college administrations and their troubles (an interesting critique in that THE BOOK is copyrighted 1966, and therefore in some ways prophesies the events of this year); he tells us how difficult it is to take a walk in these days of police-state-ism; how society has ganged up together to agree to accept falsehood as truth—and how in this way modern man has become divided against both himself and his environment.
But once more, the positive side of all this just doesn’t stand scrutiny, for all the twistings and turnings of the author’s reasoning. The basic concept of identity to which Mr. Watts points is Oneness—everything is one, and cause and effect are simply manifestations of that same one, are themselves one, and thus there really is no cause and effect: things just take their course. This is a philosophy dear especially to the debauched, degraded and depraved of every generation—not only today, but as far back as Rome, Egypt, and before even that. By this philosophy, no sin or crime, no evil or shortcoming need be accounted for. It simply happens, takes place, and no one is to blame . All is One, so who could be blamed ?
Yet this is always a philosophy by which none can actually live. It’s a mental exercise, an excuse for atrocities at worst, a parlor conversation ploy at best—never a philosophy of life. No one steps before an onrushing train, careless of death, and simply shrugs, “It’s all One.” Even Mr. Watts must cross at the green if he wants to enjoy his royalties. No one wears a cotton boll in place of a cotton shirt, on the consideration that there is no cause and effect. Even the author has to make concessions here: “The point is not that we should forthwith abandon penicillin or DDT [i.e., in abandoning our attempt to conquer Nature]: it is that we should fight to check the enemy, not to eliminate him.”
In other words, don’t take your troubles or triumphs too seriously, but go on with them anyway. Don’t try to make a permanent solution. “We must learn to include ourselves in the round of cooperations and conflicts, of symbiosis and preying, which constitutes the balance of nature…” he writes; and yet, wouldn’t we be the only species who didn’t take it all seriously? And wouldn’t that be just as absurd as attempting totally to subdue Nature? What is lacking here is an understanding of the fact that what specifically qualifies human consciousness and sets it apart from that of the beasts is its very ability to seek out a final solution—its determination to pursue and uncover the Absolute, or God. And if modern man has gone mad, it is because he is attempting to find that solution through the exploitation of material Nature, rather than through the development of spiritual life. To abandon the pursuit of a solution wholly is simply another form of defeat.
The advice that we should take things as they come is, in itself, no more than any backyard washerwoman would say after hearing of her neighbor’s arthritis, old age and abuses.
And the idea of Oneness never will explain how all these varieties we experience came about, or what to do with them.
This goes even further into the realm of the absurd when the author quotes Erwin Schrodinger as saying that, “eternally and always there is only now, one and the same now; the present is the only thing that has no end.” But the present keeps changing here in this material world, and even though it has no end, it certainly isn’t always the same. Therefore, to adjust the mind to such a concept of non-differentiation is not to approach reality but, rather, to ignore the world as it is. And, even if the world is only an illusion, then that illusion itself, with all its varieties, still must require an explanation.
According to the actual Vedic sources, the material world with its varieties is illusory in that it is temporary. The real or spiritual world is eternal. But still, the material does exist. It exists as the reflection of the real, perverted through the individual’s deluded consciousness. And, just as a mirror cannot show even false grapes without real grapes existing, so this material illusion can only reflect actual varieties. And, in the same sense, ego—one’s sense of individuality—is only a reflection of actual and immortal individuality, which exists in the spiritual world, in the Kingdom of God.
That there are varieties—blues, reds, yellows, ups and downs, ins and outs, I’s and Thou’s—which never disappear or are corrupted—essences, in other words—is perhaps inconceivable to the mundane intellect; but it is the very dependence upon mundane intellectual scholarship which is the basic fault in Alan Watts’ writings from beginning to end.
The Vedic system, along with all authentic Scriptural systems of God realization, enjoins strict and rigorous personal discipline upon those who wish to understand the Truth. Simply to read some words in a book without comprehending the practical facts by realization is incomplete, and must lead to the sort of distortions and contradictions of which THE BOOK is guilty. Truth must be perceived and manifested on three levels: in the mind, in the speech, and in action. Unless all three are absorbed in the Absolute, then realization, the direct personal experience of the existence of the Absolute, cannot be had.
It is by service to a spiritual master who is himself realized in a particular study or discipline that one is able to advance in understanding, just as an apprentice learns from a master, rather than from a manual. Without this service and without the guidance of a realized soul, no valid comprehension can be attained. The purely scholastic approach has been likened to bees licking on the outside of a bottle of honey: they may see it and smell it, but they can’t really taste it, and so fail to get satisfaction. To go on blithely reading books which are crying out for you to engage your activities in spiritual life, and then to write your own theses about them, while never having followed their injunctions, is the height of arrogant foolishness.
Yet this would seem to be Mr. Watts’ system, and he writes off as “myth” any passages that might tend to disturb him or his readers into active commitment.
Again we’re left with nothing to live by. When THE BOOK has been read, it can be forgotten without loss or bother, for it has said nothing. Again, the author is aware of his own shortcomings, and so he has slipped in a chapter called “So What?”
But “So What?” is also just a dodge. Its principal passage reads: “If, then, after understanding, at least in theory, that the ego-trick is a hoax and that, beneath everything, ‘I’ and ‘universe’ are one, you ask, ‘So what? What is the next step, the practical application?’—I will answer that the absolutely vital thing is to consolidate your understanding, to become capable of enjoyment, of living in the present, and of the discipline which this involves.”
Whatever “consolidate your understanding” may mean, becoming capable of enjoyment is no stranger to us. The only trouble is that everyone is already trying to enjoy in one way or another, from the President down to the neighborhood street sweeper—and yet no one is succeeding. Simply to tell people that they must learn to enjoy might make you popular, but it isn’t a “practical application” after all. How to enjoy remains the real problem.
Bind and double bind, triple bind, quadruple bind—they weave themselves like the glittering tentacles of a fabulous serpent throughout the mental corridors of THE BOOK. We’re told that, to enjoy, we must stop trying to enjoy. But that takes an effort too—that’s also trying to enjoy. And trying not to make an effort not to try to enjoy…? So it goes on, the mind twists on through the labyrinths of illusion, seeking an out, but never finding more than a new path that brings us back to the old starting point: you are not this body. Negative and true.
But for the positive, we’ll all be better off if we turn to the real Vedanta Itself. For there, and in the associated Vedic Scriptures, positive statements are made very succinctly by great sages who actually lived with their minds, words and deeds fixed on God, on the Supreme Transcendence. You are not this body, they agree. You are spirit soul—Absolute—Brahman. They also say this, and they say it in a straight-forward fashion. And there is Param Brahman, a Supreme Spirit, as well.
As for knowing one’s absolute or spiritual nature in full, the sages tell us to find a realized spiritual master, submit to him, serve him and inquire of him regarding Truth. He, being in knowledge, can reveal and explain, and can offer the example of perfection by his own life.
Alongside this, how involved and subtle the writings of Mr. Watts necessarily appear. One almost gets the impression that, above all else, his interest is to avoid criticism; and perhaps this explains the vagueness and negativity of his approach, like a wounded man waving his sword to confuse his enemy in hopes of avoiding a blow, but never of delivering one.
Mr. Watts further displays a surprising ignorance of the principles of devotional service when, on page 79, he states that the idea that everything belongs to God and should be used for God is a kind of stewardship, based on the hope of future reward. For it is devotion itself, manifested in this world as loving service to God, which is the topmost perfection of human consciousness, and of life. There is, in authentic devotional circles, no question of reward greater than love of God itself.
Turn from this, Mr. Watts advises us, because the individual ego is a hoax perpetrated upon us by the ignorant. And turn from the Void concept as well—that also is illusion . Approach life with “the fullest collaboration with the world as a harmonious system of contained conflicts—based on the realization that the only real ‘I’ is the whole endless process.” Again, if you’ll pardon our bluntness, So What? The words sound meaningful, and yet there seems to be something missing: the meaning itself. On and on, Mr. Watts offers mental adjustments which will, supposedly, make you happy. Like weight-watching, if you tend toward materialistic fads, you can give THE BOOK a try. But it doesn’t promise to offer anything final. Death is still there, life is still there, unfulfilled.
Perhaps the words of Sri Shankara Acharya, who also invented an interpretation of the Vedanta many hundreds of years ago, and who is still widely renowned for his gigantic scholarship, will best serve to cap off our consideration of THE BOOK. He wrote:
You intellectual fools! Just worship Govinda [Krishna]! Just worship Govinda! Just worship Govinda! Your grammatical knowledge and word jugglery will not save you at the time of death!
 
May 20, 2004
602
34
0
www.rapbay.com
#86
right on, good review even though dude doesn't agree with Watts!... goes back to points of view being built on the foundations of personal beliefs and interpretations. And how the points of view can be swayed in any direction at any time upon the discovery of new information that may make the individual feel more comfortable.. reaffirms the concept of the ego being ultimately illusory in nature. Which returns to the idea of the universal "Self" and the interpretation of that influenced by beliefs... Watts champions one point of view and the man doing the book review clearly identifies with a different point of view. And then you and I identify with their points of view shown with me liking what watts had to say and you posting the review with the opposing view. And relationship is a mirror.. so if someone mirrors back my point of view i connect with them.. if they don't i will disagree and maybe not make a connection with them. I mirrored Watts and you mirrored the writer of the review. But what are these fundamental points of view being mirrored? Do they have any substantial nature? They're only kept alive by our attachment to them and they can be discarded at any point in time. Such instances give rise to being into new things... or not being "the person i used to be."

But thats the hard issue i was talking about earlier because if backed by a belief system. Then some of these fundamental points of view are taken to be more "credible" than others because they're backed by the ultimate judge, jury and executioner "God". And that spawns as i said earlier those who identify with religious points of view thinking they have the truth and those who don't share their beliefs are "lost" or "idiots" or lesser human beings destined for rebirth, or hell, or sin or never reaching the union with the ultimate. All built on assumptions of what is right or wrong, good/bad or true/false.

So while its a great book review, in the truest sense we can neither say its right or wrong... nor can we say what Watts is saying in the book is right or wrong. Its all interpretation so it's whatever it is to you right?

At the base of it all Watts was just trying to share a point of view that struck a chord with him. That meant something to him. Made his life better and thought that others might be able to benefit from it. Or he realized he could make a living by writing books and giving seminars about the subject matter. His message and ideas will resonate with some and not with others.

The danger is when you actually believe whats being said is true. If i actually believed what watts is saying is the truth or if we actually believed what the writer of the book review was saying is true then we have limited ourselves. We become closed because we think we know the truth and what were hearing either fits that truth or doesn't fit that truth. And it kills the energy to learn and investigate. We can become stagnant and actually fight for our point of view. Putting others down to don't mirror it... start wars and breed separation (which is all well and good too.)

Everything i just said is my interpretation. And its not wrong or right. You may come back with a different interpretation, and thats not wrong or right. We're free to be whatever and do whatever. It's only when we think we need to fit into a certain structure or behave a certain way that it becomes lost.
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#88
right on, good review even though dude doesn't agree with Watts!... goes back to points of view being built on the foundations of personal beliefs and interpretations. And how the points of view can be swayed in any direction at any time upon the discovery of new information that may make the individual feel more comfortable.. reaffirms the concept of the ego being ultimately illusory in nature. Which returns to the idea of the universal "Self" and the interpretation of that influenced by beliefs... Watts champions one point of view and the man doing the book review clearly identifies with a different point of view. And then you and I identify with their points of view shown with me liking what watts had to say and you posting the review with the opposing view. And relationship is a mirror.. so if someone mirrors back my point of view i connect with them.. if they don't i will disagree and maybe not make a connection with them. I mirrored Watts and you mirrored the writer of the review. But what are these fundamental points of view being mirrored? Do they have any substantial nature? They're only kept alive by our attachment to them and they can be discarded at any point in time. Such instances give rise to being into new things... or not being "the person i used to be."

But thats the hard issue i was talking about earlier because if backed by a belief system. Then some of these fundamental points of view are taken to be more "credible" than others because they're backed by the ultimate judge, jury and executioner "God". And that spawns as i said earlier those who identify with religious points of view thinking they have the truth and those who don't share their beliefs are "lost" or "idiots" or lesser human beings destined for rebirth, or hell, or sin or never reaching the union with the ultimate. All built on assumptions of what is right or wrong, good/bad or true/false.

So while its a great book review, in the truest sense we can neither say its right or wrong... nor can we say what Watts is saying in the book is right or wrong. Its all interpretation so it's whatever it is to you right?

At the base of it all Watts was just trying to share a point of view that struck a chord with him. That meant something to him. Made his life better and thought that others might be able to benefit from it. Or he realized he could make a living by writing books and giving seminars about the subject matter. His message and ideas will resonate with some and not with others.

The danger is when you actually believe whats being said is true. If i actually believed what watts is saying is the truth or if we actually believed what the writer of the book review was saying is true then we have limited ourselves. We become closed because we think we know the truth and what were hearing either fits that truth or doesn't fit that truth. And it kills the energy to learn and investigate. We can become stagnant and actually fight for our point of view. Putting others down to don't mirror it... start wars and breed separation (which is all well and good too.)

Everything i just said is my interpretation. And its not wrong or right. You may come back with a different interpretation, and thats not wrong or right. We're free to be whatever and do whatever. It's only when we think we need to fit into a certain structure or behave a certain way that it becomes lost.
1. Vedanta pertains to God. You can't divorce the two and still think you're promoting Vedanta.

2. One doesn't learn Vedanta from Alan Watts.

3. Study Vedanta Sutra and Srila Vyasadeva's commentary/elucidation on Vedanta Sutra, the Bhagavata Purana aka Srimad Bhagavatam if you want to understand Vedanta.

4. The implication that we're all just speculating with equally valid or invalid interpretations is false.

5. Stating that something is false does not make one "closed" or "stagnant," especially in response to a series of mere mental gymnastics that have no practical application.

6. It is Watts and company who are backed by a superfluous and detrimental belief system - namely, the belief in an impersonalist philosophy that prevents them from grasping Vedanta in full.

7. This monism/impersonalism is not a natural or direct understanding of Vedanta as evidenced by the fact that it arose as a counteraction to sastra-rejecting Buddhism. It does not come out of the Vedic/Vedantic literatures on its own accord. One has to be very selective of verses and be a crafty word-juggler in order to screw out an interpretation that fits the one you're promoting.