Yay! It's All Me

[vulcanlogician]

I never claimed this was my definition. I was merely looking at a dictionary definition (M-W), IIRC. I'm also not claiming the terms are synonymous.

But now that you mention it, revealed to whom?

I'm not challenging your claims or saying it's YOUR definition that you use in your personal life. I'm merely trying to get to the root of the matter. But it IS the definition you proposed for the purpose of your thesis in your original post. And you asked me to refer to it. So I did.

***

Revealed to whom? The mystic of course!

Krishna's true form wasn't showed to to all the Pandavas and Kauravas. It was shown to one person: Arjuna. But I wouldn't call Arjuna an occultist, nor would I say that Krishna dealt with things that are unseen or unknowable. To the contrary, Krishna made known some horrifying things. He revealed the reality of who and what he really is.

There is no opaque "hiddenness" or "mystery" in that. I want to have a discussion with you about that. You personally didn't make the claim that the terms are synonymous, so you don't need to defend that position if you don't feel like it. But you stated that others DO lump mysticism and occultism together. I'm wondering who you think is right... or perhaps both are right?.... and why or why not?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm not challenging your claims or saying it's YOUR definition that you use in your personal life. I'm merely trying to get to the root of the matter. But it IS the definition you proposed for the purpose of your thesis in your original post. And you asked me to refer to it. So I did.

***

Revealed to whom? The mystic of course!

Krishna's true form wasn't showed to to all the Pandavas and Kauravas. It was shown to one person: Arjuna. But I wouldn't call Arjuna an occultist, nor would I say that Krishna dealt with things that are unseen or unknowable. To the contrary, Krishna made known some horrifying things. He revealed the reality of who and what he really is.

There is no opaque "hiddenness" or "mystery" in that. I want to have a discussion with you about that. You personally didn't make the claim that the terms are synonymous, so you don't need to defend that position if you don't feel like it. But you stated that others DO lump mysticism and occultism together. I'm wondering who you think is right... or perhaps both are right?.... and why or why not?

*emphasis mine

This is my point. It's revealed to the mystic. It's not something revealed to all...therefore hidden from most, which is the definition of 'occult' I'm using. In fact, in looking again, the very first definition on M-W is "not revealed."

I guess given my experiences on my path, I don't view the word 'occult' with the same negative stigma as many do.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I guess given my experiences on my path, I don't view the word 'occult' with the same negative stigma as many do.

It is quite possible that we are using the word "occult" differently. I tend to associate it with exaggerated claims and magical thinking. And you have a point that I may be "stigmatizing" it a lil' bit. Those two things are not features of the definition you provided.

But I will push back on the notion that the Gita is trying to imply that something is "hidden" because only Arjuna sees the vision. I think the main point the Gita is trying to make is "you need to open your eyes and see God." I don't think it was trying to say, "Arjuna saw God and you didn't."

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is quite possible that we are using the word "occult" differently. I tend to associate it with exaggerated claims and magical thinking. And you have a point that I may be "stigmatizing" it a lil' bit. Those two things are not features of the definition you provided.

But I will push back on the notion that the Gita is trying to imply that something is "hidden" because only Arjuna sees the vision. I think the main point the Gita is trying to make is "you need to open your eyes and see God." I don't think it was trying to say, "Arjuna saw God and you didn't."

I never mentioned the Gita. But since you bring it up, wouldn't you say that the knowledge Krishna imparted on Arjuna was hidden from Arjuna by ignorance until it was revealed to him by Krishna?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Plus, bruh. You've listened to occultists before. They tend toward unrealistic and exaggerated claims. I'm not saying false claims, mind you. But there are some seriously dubious ideas floating around occultism. Youtube's Esoterica is the only occultist I've learned to trust, and that's only because of his painstaking honesty.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I never mentioned the Gita. But since you bring it up, wouldn't you say that the knowledge Krishna imparted on Arjuna was hidden from Arjuna by ignorance until it was revealed to him by Krishna?

Yeah. Everything is hidden until we discover it.

 

[The Dreamer]

Thank you. I very much appreciate it. I will try very hard not to imply or attach silliness to your posts or ideas. But, if there is a playful tone, it is tempting for me to play along.

I was actually serious. So don't be tempted.

 

[dybmh]

I was actually serious. So don't be tempted.

When you posted those messages about being god and creating me, you were serious that you were god creating me, even though you didn't feel like god creating me at that moment? And your brain was not in that "mode", for lack of a better word to be operating as a god creating me? How does that work if you were being serious?

So, if you were serious, then, why didn't you adjust your point of view when I showed that it couldn't possibly have been true? Instead you laughed and said something about a "split"?

What's a "split"? Did I get that wording correct? If you were serious, what did you mean by that? Is that something that comes from a book, or your imagination?

 

[ajay0]

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

A brahmana is someone who is involved in religion, philosophy and theology, discovery of truth, righteous conduct, simple living with the goal of attaining enlightenment.

Anyone who has the above traits can be considered to be a brahmana.

In the context of the later caste system, a brahmana was one who was skilled in study of the Vedas and vedic philosophies, and performance of temple rituals and rites.

An enlightened or Self-realized person, no matter whatever caste he may belong, is considered superior to the brahmana in the context of the caste system, and this is emphasized by the Bhagavad Gita itself. In fact, the enlightened sage is considered to be the true brahmana on virtue of his enlightened state.

​

To the sage who has known the Self, all the Vedas are of as much use as is a reservoir of water in a place where there is a flood. (BG :2.46)​

This is the reason why Adi Shankaracharya who was a caste brahmin, bowed down in reverence to an enlightened sage from the lower caste of the hunter.

Similarly Guru Ravidas from the lower cobbler caste , was an enlightened sage, and discovering this fact through his sayings resembling upanishadic teachings and various miracles around him, caste brahmins and kings bowed down before Guru Ravidas.

The term Maharaj meaning 'great king' was often used as a honorific title for such enlightened sages, and the enlightened Nisargadatta in the twentieth century was also honored thus, even though he was from the lowest dalit caste.

 

[dybmh]

This is the reason why Adi Shankaracharya who was a caste brahmin, bowed down in reverence to an enlightened sage from the lower caste of the hunter.

Why would an enlightened sage accept this supplication? If they were enlightened it is 100% wrong and out of context to accept supplication of any kind. This is one of the contradictions that stand out to me like a bright blinking neon sign.

I would like to read this story myself. The grandiose self-image accepts and encourages supplication from another. The enlightened-sage whom has the realization of Brahman-unqualified would not.

If the story is written in a way which encourages this supplication, then, I do not think the source is, themself, enlightened, nor those who are inspired by the encouragement of the supplication.

 

[dybmh]

Why would an enlightened sage accept this supplication?

Answer: They have realized a non-judgemental acceptance of the duality that is inherent in reality, but they are not attached to it.

IOW, they have transcended the attachment to duality, but they simulateneously acknowledge it.

In my non-judgemental-judgement.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why would an enlightened sage accept this supplication? If they were enlightened it is 100% wrong and out of context to accept supplication of any kind. This is one of the contradictions that stand out to me like a bright blinking neon sign.

I would like to read this story myself. The grandiose self-image accepts and encourages supplication from another. The enlightened-sage whom has the realization of Brahman-unqualified would not.

If the story is written in a way which encourages this supplication, then, I do not think the source is, themself, enlightened, nor those who are inspired by the encouragement of the supplication.

Accept? Is one who is enlightened expected to forcibly stop another from bowing? Perhaps the sage should have tackled Shankaracharya as he began to bow?

 

[dybmh]

Accept? Is one who is enlightened expected to forcibly stop another from bowing? Perhaps the sage should have tackled Shankaracharya as he began to bow?

That's what I would do. ~kidding~ I would say "stand-up. I am no different than you. We are the same."

And that's the same as any person with any common decency, imo. Enlightened-sage is more common, imo, than I think people give credit for.

But, skippping that, please read what I posted just a few minutes prior? Directly above your post. I think we're in agreement.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Answer: They have realized a non-judgemental acceptance of the duality that is inherent in reality, but they are not attached to it.

IOW, they have transcended the attachment to duality, but they simulateneously acknowledge it.

In my non-judgemental-judgement.

An enlightened sage remains engaged with the world, even though they realize this perceived reality is only an appearance…that there is no duality. There is only Brahman.

 

[The Dreamer]

It is quite possible that we are using the word "occult" differently. I tend to associate it with exaggerated claims and magical thinking. And you have a point that I may be "stigmatizing" it a lil' bit. Those two things are not features of the definition you provided.

But I will push back on the notion that the Gita is trying to imply that something is "hidden" because only Arjuna sees the vision. I think the main point the Gita is trying to make is "you need to open your eyes and see God." I don't think it was trying to say, "Arjuna saw God and you didn't."

I tend to associate occultism with decoding and applying the hidden wisdom. For example I think Bible is an occult book. One cannot understand it without decoding it first. For example in the Bible there is the mention of the "Lake of Fire". It is actually the same as "Lethe" from greek mythology and it refers to forgetfulness/second death. It is also in line with Buddhist idea of reincarnation (when one dies he forgets and starts a new). But if you don't approach it from an occult perspective and take it in the face value then you may believe the lake of fire is an actual place where people get punished/burned.

The process of decoding and applying may also involve practices such as meditation etc. I see Enlightenment and Magic as the highest purposes and achievements of the occultism.

edit: If these purposes are unrealistic and exaggerated well then that means I will just live a boring life and die like everyone else.

 

[dybmh]

An enlightened sage remains engaged with the world, even though they realize this perceived reality is only an appearance…that there is no duality. There is only Brahman.

Then when a person bows to them a proper response, imo, is "we are the same". And lifting up a story which promotes the idea that the enlightened-sage is somehow different from the others is itself, not-enlightened.

Being inspired by such a story is, itself, not-enlightened.

On the other hand, if the story includes the lesson "we are the same, literally", then, imo, the story has returned to its proper context.

Agreed?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Then when a person bows to them a proper response, imo, is "we are the same". And lifting up a story which promotes the idea that the enlightened-sage is somehow different from the others is itself, not-enlightened.

Being inspired by such a story is, itself, not-enlightened.

On the other hand, if the story includes the lesson "we are the same, literally", then, imo, the story has returned to its proper context.

Agreed?

Do you know what “namaste/namaskar” means? I ask because there may be a gap in cultural understanding here.

 

[dybmh]

Do you know what “namaste/namaskar” means? I ask because there may be a gap in cultural understanding here.

Without looking it up, Isn't it, something approximately:

"I see the divine in you"?

None the less, without that included in the story this seems to be an irrelevant question. A quiz. Nothing more

I have never seen a Hindu bow to another in greeting "namaste" where the other didn't bow in return. And the bowing is not supplication.

Again, the story as told in this thread indicates the enlightened-sage is different and above another. The story as told here, cannot be enlightened. Being inspired by it cannot be enlightened.

I asked a question if we agreed. I'm not sure why that question was returned with a question asking about a word/concept. If it is attempting to demonstrate a difference between our positions when none exists...

Well.

If this were a debate, that would be called a red-herring, a distraction.

I'd like to stay on topic which is how these concepts can be flipped and applied in reverse.

 

[dybmh]

Do you know what “namaste/namaskar” means? I ask because there may be a gap in cultural understanding here.

This an interfaith discussion.

Do you know what the word "shalom" means?

I'm asking because it seems there is an assumption that the concepts being discussed are not part of my culture.

 

[The Hammer]

"Occult" merely means "hidden" or "not readily understood." Mysticism is considered by many to be an occult practice. And there are Hindu mystics, Buddhist mystics, Christian mystics, Jewish mystics, and even atheist mystics. And this is by no means a complete list.

Pagan Mystics.

I have a whole book dedicated to it's study.