Yay! It's All Me

[dybmh]

I don't understand how the above symbol demonizes the process.

It's not the symbol, it's the metaphor you described. Like I said, I have the same image using different words. More-or-less. That's why I asked the questions I asked.

You determined that the ego is the snake's head, and it is eating the world which is the tail. The ego is described as a destroyer or consuming the world, that's not a "good" image. It's not just eating itself, but everything, the whole world. And, it is never ever saticfied, right? That's the metaphor you brought?. If is always and forever consuming everything, this extremely demonizes the ego.

Doesn't this fit within the model, the ideal which you described? Ego is not a good thing, in your view, correct?

You said:

most of those religious beliefs were corrupted because they turned god into an external and alien being which is to be worshipped and begged. We have forgotten our divine nature. We are one consciousness and consciousness is god.

Key word: corrupted. You are claiming there is a major fault occuring with all of the other religions which consider an external deity which is to be worshipped and supplicated. You also chose the word "begged" which has a negative connotation.

Rhetorical question: What is this major fault that you were claiming?

The head of the snake (ego) eats (perceives) it's tail (the world).

Rhetorical answer: People have "forgotten" ( your word choice ) that "The ego is eating the world."

This positions the ego as the enemy, the demon.

 

[The Dreamer]

I'm not sure if you have ever heard the term "mystical experience" or "oneness experience" but it's a phenomenon that has been visited on this forum on more than one occasion. A search on the forum's search function for either term (check the search titles only box first) should bring up some hits if you're interested in reading about them.

I'd also be more interested in hearing more about your experience if it's something you'd like to share.

I cannot exactly reconstruct the experience now. I suddenly felt like everything is coming together. Not like parts of my psyche but everything that exists. If I remember correctly it felt like I became the one consciousness and it is all me. I experienced a deep peace. Tears came to my eyes. After that I also had experiences where I got sudden realizations that everything is a dream and it is all me, that I am alone. In those periods where I felt more spiritual there were also strange occurrences in my life like coincidences and I wasn't expecting these to happen.

 

[The Dreamer]

It's not the symbol, it's the metaphor you described. Like I said, I have the same image using different words. More-or-less. That's why I asked the questions I asked.

You determined that the ego is the snake's head, and it is eating the world which is the tail. The ego is described as a destroyer or consuming the world, that's not a "good" image. It's not just eating itself, but everything, the whole world. And, it is never ever saticfied, right? That's the metaphor you brought?. If is always and forever consuming everything, this extremely demonizes the ego.

Doesn't this fit within the model, the ideal which you described? Ego is not a good thing, in your view, correct?

You said:



Key word: corrupted. You are claiming there is a major fault occuring with all of the other religions which consider an external deity which is to be worshipped and supplicated. You also chose the word "begged" which has a negative connotation.

Rhetorical question: What is this major fault that you were claiming?



Rhetorical answer: People have "forgotten" ( your word choice ) that "The ego is eating the world."

This positions the ego as the enemy, the demon.

I am sorry but you misunderstood it all. You are biased into thinking your religion is the correct one and anything outside your religion has to be wrong and evil. But as I wrote in that post eating is a reference to perceiving.

 

[dybmh]

I am sorry but you misunderstood it all. You are biased into thinking your religion is the correct one and anything outside your religion has to be wrong and evil. But as I wrote in that post eating is a reference to perceiving.

Nah, I def don't think that way. Ironically that judgement is likely produced by its own bias.

To clear this up, maybe let me know if the "ego" is good or bad in the metaphor? Or is the metaphor neutral towards the ego?

Please remember the negative valence attached to all the other religions and that they are "corrupt".

What is causing the corruption? Wasn't it the ego? I understand that it is a perception. But the metaphor appeared to me to be a harshly negative attitude towards the "ego-consuming the world" which is a negative false perception.

 

[ajay0]

What I don't think you realize is that the history of this practice comes from India, where there is/was an extremely harsh caste system. These ideas and maybe even the role-play I am observing in your posts would have been treasured at that time and in that place by the royalty and could permit an individual to leap-frog out of their unfair and pitiful and arbitrary servitude and squalor.

Are you able to comprend the profound implications of this?

The concept of nonduality and emptiness is there in Buddhism, Janism and Sikhism and the caste system is not there in these religions.

In Hinduism as well, caste system as a feudal social system is not part of the scriptures. It came as a man-made system similar to the feudal systems in europe, Japan and Korea.

The concept of Advaita or nonduality actually has been used to forward the teachings of equality and fraternity in Hinduism by progressive Hindu reformers.

 

[dybmh]

The concept of nonduality and emptiness is there in Buddhism, Janism and Sikhism and the caste system is not there in these religions.

I said: "What I don't think you realize is that the history of this practice comes from ... "

Hinduism : 3000BCE Jainism: 900BCE Buddhism: 500CE Sikhism 1500CE

In Hinduism as well, caste system as a feudal social system is not part of the scriptures. It came as a man-made system similar to the feudal systems in europe, Japan and Korea.

I think you are missing the point.

I said: "Are you able to comprend the profound implications of this?"

There is a very large incentive to rise in the caste system via being able to employ these ideas in a specific manner. The fuedal system has a different incentive for rising in their caste system.

 

[ajay0]

I said: "What I don't think you realize is that the history of this practice comes from ... "

Hinduism : 3000BCE Jainism: 900BCE Buddhism: 500CE Sikhism 1500CE

Early Hinduism based on the Vedas alone also did not have the man-made caste system which came later on. Much of the Rishis or sages belonged to the lower occupational groups.

Satyakama Jabala was a Vedic sage whose sayings are part of the Vedas.

When he arrived as a student before his Guru to learn from him, his Guru enquired about his family lineage. Jabala answered that he was the illegitimate son of a woman who was unaware of his parentage. The Guru took him as a disciple, impressed by his honesty and character.

You can see from this incident that the casteism was not present in the early vedic period and came about later on as a man-made feudal system.

 

[dybmh]

Early Hinduism based on the Vedas alone also did not have the man-made caste system which came later on. Much of the Rishis or sages belonged to the lower occupational groups.

Satyakama Jabala was a Vedic sage whose sayings are part of the Vedas.

When he arrived as a student before his Guru to learn from him, his Guru enquired about his family lineage. Jabala answered that he was the illegitimate son of a woman who was unaware of his parentage. The Guru took him as a disciple, impressed by his honesty and character.

You can see from this incident that the casteism was not present in the early vedic period and came about later on as a man-made feudal system.

What does this have to do with the incentive for becoming a brahman once the caste system was established?

Perhaps there is a confusion or a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of hinduism eventhough I was writing about the specific manner of the OP in this thread and others:

role-playing as if they are a god who is creating everything, and nothing else exists. challenging others to prove that they exist. ALL others are corrupted excluding themself.

Is that early hinduism?

someone who is talented at this sort of role-play could escape their caste. that is the point I was trying to make. there are, imo, profound implications of this.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Perhaps there is a confusion or a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of hinduism...

Do you think it's productive to criticize that which you don't understand?

 

[dybmh]

Do you think it's productive to criticize that which you don't understand?

It seems like you skipped a few words in my reply. Please read it again? The word "eventhough" is very important for understanding what I wrote, but it doesn't seem like you read past the words "criticism of hinduism".

 

[Jimmy]

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that without you nothing would exist?

 

[SalixIncendium]

It seems like you skipped a few words in my reply. Please read it again? The word "eventhough" is very important for understanding what I wrote, but it doesn't seem like you read past the words "criticism of hinduism".

Nope, though your assumption is duly noted. I read the whole thing. I quoted the relevant portion of the post. It's apparent to me that you are criticizing without having a working understanding of Hinduism with phrases like "become a brahman" and "role-playing as if they are a god that is creating everything."

Perhaps it would lead to a more productive discourse if you research that which you intend to speak of, ask questions on what you don't understand, and compare and contrast views. I see nothing productive being critical of another's views from a position of ignorance. It just leads to parties talking past one another.

 

[dybmh]

Nope, though your assumption is duly noted. I read the whole thing. I quoted the relevant portion of the post. It's apparent to me that you are criticizing without having a working understanding of Hinduism with phrases like "become a brahman" and "role-playing as if they are a god that is creating everything."

Perhaps it would lead to a more productive discourse if you research that which you intend to speak of, ask questions on what you don't understand, and compare and contrast views. I see nothing productive being critical of another's views from a position of ignorance. It just leads to parties talking past one another.

" I quoted the relevant portion of the post." --- omitting the qualifier and the last half of the sentence, which indicates I was not criticizing hinduism , reverses the meaning of what I wrote.

 

[dybmh]

There is a very large incentive to rise in the caste system via being able to employ these ideas in a specific manner.

In a specific manner.

Specific.

 

[dybmh]

become a brahman

The words chosen and the context is important. The context is a caste system. A brahman is included in that caste system.

from a position of ignorance

The words "becoming a brahman", I think, are completely out of context for Hinduism.

No one becomes a brahman.

It is a realization of brahman, unqualified.

The indefinite article "a" doesn't describe Hinduism.

The word "becoming" doesn't describe Hinduism.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The words chosen and the context is important. The context is a caste system. A brahman is included in that caste system.

Did you mean "becoming a Brahmin?" That would make more sense.

The words "becoming a brahman", I think, are completely out of context for Hinduism.

No one becomes a brahman.

It is a realization of brahman, unqualified.

The indefinite article "a" doesn't describe Hinduism.

The word "becoming" doesn't describe Hinduism.

Brahman is the highest principle in Hinduism...the ultimate reality. It is conceptualized in two aspects...either with qualities and attributes, i.e. deities (Saguna Brahman) or without qualities or attributes (Nirguna Brahman or Para Brahman). Typically, depending on the school of philosophy, the person (jiva) in their true nature is atman, which is identical to Brahman. Most are ignorant to this due to time, space, and causation (Maya), which casts a veil to one's true nature as Brahman. So essentially, one doesn't "become" Brahman. One is already that (Tat tvam asi).

 

[dybmh]

Did you mean "becoming a Brahmin?" That would make more sense.

Yes! Thank-you-thank-you. Brahmin. I will be more careful. It's a very important distinction. Sorry.

Brahman is the highest principle in Hinduism...the ultimate reality. It is conceptualized in two aspects...either with qualities and attributes, i.e. deities (Saguna Brahman) or without qualities or attributes (Nirguna Brahman or Para Brahman). Typically, depending on the school of philosophy, the person (jiva) in their true nature is atman, which is identical to Brahman. Most are ignorant to this due to time, space, and causation (Maya), which casts a veil to one's true nature as Brahman. So essentially, one doesn't "become" Brahman. One is already that (Tat tvam asi).

Agreed. That is precisely what I wrote. Brahman, unqualified. Literally.

From this realization, it doesn't seem accurate at all to label anyone or anything "corrupt". Any judgement applied to anyone or anything becomes very difficult, perhaps impossible. The word choice of "veil" I think is ideal because it carries no valence. It is simply a veil, which is itself Brahman, it "is". There is nothing "good" or "bad" about it. Although, the word "ignorance", generally, is a pejorative in common parlance in spite of the maxim, "ignorance is bliss".

The above is my understanding of your usage of the term transtheism, which applies these concepts of non-judgemental acceptance and simultaneous detachment from "theism".

 

[SalixIncendium]

Although, the word ignorance, generally is a pejorative in common parlance in spite of the maxim, "ignorance is bliss".

Used colloquially, yes, but you'll find the word used quite frequently in Vedanta lectures and other academic discourse.

 

[The Dreamer]

role-playing as if they are a god who is creating everything, and nothing else exists. challenging others to prove that they exist. ALL others are corrupted excluding themself.

I was not role playing. I experienced being the one consciousness/god. I think that attaining this realization is the highest purpose of almost all religions. You cannot know God without being one with it. I wasn't challenging anyone I said my aim is to interact with my parts and remember. I didn't say all others excluding myself are corrupted. You are just thinking in a dualistic manner like good/evil etc but in the oneness there is no good/evil etc because you realize you are the mercy and malice.

I don't know much about Judaism but I know a little about the Kether. I found a beautiful Wikipedia page on it. Here is a quote from that page:

The first Sephirah is called the Crown, since a crown is worn above the head. The Crown therefore refers to things that are above the mind's abilities of comprehension. All of the other Sephirot are likened to the body which starts with the head and winds its way down into action. But the crown of a king lies above the head and connects the concept of "monarchy", which is abstract and intangible, with the tangible and concrete head of the king.[citation needed]

This first Sefirah represents the primal stirrings of intent in the Ein Soph (infinity), or the arousal of desire to come forth into the varied life of being.[2] But in this sense, although it contains all the potential for content, it contains no content itself, and is therefore called 'Nothing', 'The Hidden Light', 'The air that cannot be grasped'. Being desire to bring the world into being...

 

[dybmh]

I was not role playing. I experienced being the one consciousness/god.

While the experience is happening, it would not be role-play. I think a fair objective assessment of your intro thread is indeed role-play. If you are not actively having that experience, then the title of this thread is inapproriate.

And I've already expressed that I consider it an insult for you or anyone to claim to be MY GOD who is creating me. I also consider it an insult for anyone to assert that THEY ARE ME and I AM THEM. True or not, if one knows it is insulting, it should be avoided unless there is very good reason, agreed?

I think, if you are currently having the experience, that, would be a good reason, because it would be literally unavoidable. Otherwise it's a person pretending to be having that experience, or perhaps they are trying to have another experience like it at the expense of others. And this ignores the natural human desire to become a Brahmin.