Has anything positive come from this forum?

Spirituality Religion
#61

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58198]Charliedharma, I believe you may have misinterpreted. They are debating to learn how to defeat other viewpoints. The right hand pushing down in the clapping motion signifies the suppression of wrong views. The left hand rising in the same clapping motion symbolizes the rising of correct views.

The person sitting down is holding a counter-view to the one debating such as “Everything is permenant” The person standing up is refuting the view and arguing against it based on the training they got in logic and teachings.

The debate training is done so that the monks can answer critisms of their viewpoints and argue against other viewpoints more sharply. Again, I will inform you, massive debates use to go on in ancient times between various schools of philosophy inside Buddhism and outside Buddhism.[/QUOTE]

I believe they debate to find clever ways to present the Dharma precisely…consequently there will be heated debates… reducing to the smallest most simple representations

#62

You are saying that they are only learning to debate to understand the viewpoint, no doubt to gain appreciation for other views and understanding to foster and love andrespect and not develop any fixation for your own view - so we can all live happily ever after, right? I think you fail to understand what wrong view means. If you call somebodies view wrong you are not saying, “Hey, you are free to have your view, together we enrichen the world and make it more interesting” you are saying, “Hey, your views are nonsense and the cause of your suffering, I will show the right view to end the suffering.”

I am afraid, like I observe with many Westerners approaching the dharmic tradition, you have a very romantic and wrong view of Buddhism. Buddhism does not at all teach that you should be fixed to any view, otherwise it would not teach as absolute that everything is impermenant. Otherwise it would not teach about right view and wrong view. Buddha did not just sit idle and say, “Hey, lets agree to disagree and live happily ever after” he actually went out there and and tried to convert people to his views, while condeming their own.

Any sensible and rational person knows that it is impossible for all views, philosophies, theories and opinions to be correct. How can flat earth theory and round earth theory be equally true? How can the statements “The soul pre-existed before this birth and has taken on many bodies in the past and will in the future” and “The soul was created at conception and will live once in its current body and then face judgement” be equally true? One view is right and one view is wrong or both are wrong.

Now how can you expect Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Buddhsits to agree to a silly statement like, “All religions are true” If all religions were true, why on earth would be Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist. If Hinduism is equally true as Islam then that means Hindu idol worship is as true as Islamic Allah worship - how many Muslims will you find that will agree with this?

I understand the intention is noble that we should all love one another, respect one another and live in harmony with one another. But the thinking behind it is is stupid. It is logically impossible for contradictory views to be both equally true. The dharmic religions and Abrahamic religions are mutually contradictory, they cannot both be equally true.

There is some great film footage of Krishnamurthi and Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche having a discussion on dharmic matters , Krishnamurthi drones on with verbosity and Chogyam hardly says a word , to the un initiated it seems that Trungpa is not very bright in this clip , to the initiated he is of course a bodhisattva and Krishnamurthi looks rather vain and verbose. There are great teachers who could easily defeat others in debate but did not always choose to do so Shantideva was such a teacher he wrote the Bodhicaryavatara , he is one of the great Buddhist teachers , its a good story .

Simply put, if you do not defend your views when they are attacked, you lose the debate by default. There is no wisdom in not defending your views. When others can see you cannot defend them, they will reject such views.

#63

“Spiritual people” would express love and shine wisdom in ways that do not involve name calling or hatred, no matter someone’s race, religion, creed, Hindu, Non-Hindu, American, or Alien from Outer Space, or opinion. A democratic space requires humility by its participants and not humiliation as a means of communication. Since a forum is meant to be an open space for exchanging ideas, it would follow that not everyone would always agree with one another, but when we express our opinions, they should be labeled as such. I don’t think anyone here is so enlightened that we are the Ultimate Knowledge, or we wouldn’t be writing our opinions in a forum. We might not even have a physical experience in this world at all. So, until we are beings of light, through and through, with no density whatsoever, we should make room for others opinions, always, because that is all they are. If something rings true to you, you will know it, and not have to defend it, even intellectually. All the mystics and saints, from all religions, not just Hinduism, have said that enlightenment is experiential, not mental. In the meantime, we are all just referring to the map of the territory as if it were the territory itself, and even with modern GPS, we take wrong turns sometimes because our ‘knowledge’ is out of date. Perhaps everyone could make more room for that possibility in their postings.

#64

I have stated this before, and I will state it again: it is impossible in the real world to have different views and not have conflict. No matter how much you try to respect each other views, you never will be able to. How can I respect for example Christianity and Islam which teaches we are pagans and idolators and we must be destroyed? How can they respect Hinduism which is full of idol worship? Why do we have wars, arguments and fights? Simple, because we have so many different views. This leads to conflict and this conflict is unavoidable.

Some people say that we should learn to simply respect one another then there will be no conflicts anymore. I say to those Einsteins, how long does that work for? It has never worked and it never will - because you cannot respect something that you believe is wrong. You can respect their right to holding a view, but you cannot respect the view itself. Where there is difference - there is conflict.

Whether you like it or not Hindus hold the view that Yoga is Hinduism or inseparable from Hinduism. This problem will never go away as long as there are 1 billion Hindus on the planet. If this hurts you, agitiates you, outrages you, then that is your problem, not our problem. We have a right to holding a view, as much as you do, and this is our view on the matter. If you feel this gives you the right to personally insult us then that reflects on your poor emotional maturity.

The fact that there is going to be conflict between Hindus and Christians and Muslims simply cannot be denied. However, what form that conflict takes on can indeed be changed and thus I propose that we come to a common understanding and agreement on a code of conduct in religious debate. How arguments should be articulated and said to maintain a civilised decorum, without censoring anybodies views.

I repeat if you think it is OK to attack somebody personally simply because you don’t like their view then you are part of the problem why this forum has so much hatred. Personally, I think such members should be removed from the religion forum if they lack the emotional maturity to not acknowledge other views.

#65

Spiritual people" would express love and shine wisdom in ways that do not involve name calling or hatred, no matter someone’s race, religion, creed, Hindu, Non-Hindu, American, or Alien from Outer Space, or opinion. A democratic space requires humility by its participants and not humiliation as a means of communication.

Absolutely, and I admit to participating in this, but you see the precendent for this was set by Christian-Western members on this forum who attacked us when we said Yoga and Hinduism are inseparable. Then, despite repeated pleas for the attacks to end and our opinion be respected, they continued. So we decided to fight fire with fire. I must admit I was taken in by the hate tide and started using harsh language and insults myself. Recently, I have made some efforts to clean up my language realising that the harshness was affecting me more than anything else. Although as a human being I cannot guarantee I will ever use harsh language again, I will certainly be very mindful and maintain efforts not to, even in face of harsh language used against me.

So, until we are beings of light, through and through, with no density whatsoever, we should make room for others opinions, always, because that is all they are. If something rings true to you, you will know it, and not have to defend it, even intellectually.

This is your viewpoint and I respect your right to having a viewpoint. I personally disagree that everything is an opinion and that if something rings true to us we would not have to defend it. There are opinions and facts - is it my opinion that water is wet or just a fact? It’s a fact. I don’t think the Hindu viewpoint that Yoga is Hinduism is an opinion, but a fact -clearly demonstrated through historical and logical evidence.

If something rings true for one person, then the truth needs to be shared with others, because you are not just one person, you are a part of a wider family of humanity. Therefore you must be prepared to defend your truth. If you argue we can just keep it to ourselves, then I argue that you want the luxury of not having your truth reviewed and tested by others.

#66

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58229]I have stated this before, and I will state it again: it is impossible in the real world to have different views and not have conflict. No matter how much you try to respect each other views, you never will be able to. How can I respect for example Christianity and Islam which teaches we are pagans and idolators and we must be destroyed? How can they respect Hinduism which is full of idol worship? Why do we have wars, arguments and fights? Simple, because we have so many different views. This leads to conflict and this conflict is unavoidable.

Some people say that we should learn to simply respect one another then there will be no conflicts anymore. I say to those Einsteins, how long does that work for? It has never worked and it never will - because you cannot respect something that you believe is wrong. You can respect their right to holding a view, but you cannot respect the view itself. Where there is difference - there is conflict. [/QUOTE]
I’m slowly connecting to the reality that EVERYTHING I view about the physical world is a projection of what is going on inside of me. As I (SLOWLY) mature on an emotional level and connect to a feeling of inner peace and joy, I see that in the world. Where there was once conflict, there is peace. Where there was once anger regarding what was transpiring, there is acceptance.

It’s REALLY hard for me to detach from those negative emotions at times and realize that what I’m seeing in the world is what’s going on inside of me and taking personal responsibility for that. I’m slowly understanding what Ghandi meant about being the change you want to see. I have a long way to go but at least I’m past the point of blaming others.

#67

[QUOTE=David;58231]I’m slowly connecting to the reality that EVERYTHING I view about the physical world is a projection of what is going on inside of me. As I (SLOWLY) mature on an emotional level and connect to a feeling of inner peace and joy, I see that in the world. Where there was once conflict, there is peace. Where there was once anger regarding what was transpiring, there is acceptance.

It’s REALLY hard for me to detach from those negative emotions at times and realize that what I’m seeing in the world is what’s going on inside of me and taking personal responsibility for that. I’m slowly understanding what Ghandi meant about being the change you want to see. I have a long way to go but at least I’m past the point of blaming others.[/QUOTE]

I think that when we are in safer parts of the world, we can hold beautiful notions and maintain inner peace. Becoming the change you want to see will be easier…

When you are suffering brutality or witnessing it at close quarters, it’s a different ball game. When their family maybe brutalised, it’s a different ball game.

When a person sets out to highlight injustices, with passion, with their aim being to right these wrongs…this is for the benefit of future generations. I see this as positive.

If a few harsh words can bring home the message then the harsh words were worth it.

I remember hearing how Mahatma had a cook/housekeeper, a man he had known all his life. When the man brought a prostitute back to his residence, secretly, Mahatma found out and with strong words, he dismissed him immediately knowing the man had a family to support etc.

Should Mahatma have sat the cook down and had a good chat with him and forgiven him? Should he have had a broader mind and turned a blind eye to this incident?, it’s not exactly a hideous crime to have committed is it?
Mahatma was a great political and spiritual leader yet he dismissed this man as he saw RIGHT…and this right is the same right that people exercise all over the world and here on this site.

#68

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58229]I have stated this before, and I will state it again: it is impossible in the real world to have different views and not have conflict. No matter how much you try to respect each other views, you never will be able to. How can I respect for example Christianity and Islam which teaches we are pagans and idolators and we must be destroyed? How can they respect Hinduism which is full of idol worship? Why do we have wars, arguments and fights? Simple, because we have so many different views. This leads to conflict and this conflict is unavoidable.
[/QUOTE]

I dont think these people live in the real world at all :rolleyes: but perhaps living in symbolic realities where the idea of all-encompassing peace is constructed - a result of lack of understanding of history of political thought and linguistics.

Mathematics’s brilliant discovery chaos theory explains everything about conflict. Here take the political application of this: in complex and dependent systems (nonlinear systems), secondary conditions are highly sensitive to initial conditions just as initial conditions are highly sensitive to secondary conditions. If the initial condition was all full of peace, then there must have been a problem with the secondary condition. Say the initial condition was Yoga and Hinduism, and the secondary condition, the imposed order of Abrahamic religion. What do you think the outcome would be? There is an existing climate (the peace of Yoga and Hinduism) that is highly complex, and you are sending the same sort of climate (the peace of Christiandom, Islam, Judaism) upon the existing ones. However, there wont be more peace in the end, cos both climates are sensitive to one another, and have very limited predictability space. Capiche?

A lot of people in this forum unconsciously apply the assumption that philosophy of religion is a linear direction. Well, this is the biggest mistake here, isnt it? There is truth in every philosophy, that is a given, but some philosophies are just better than others. They were perfected and stood against the test of time. So why deny the better ones? :cool:

#69

What I said doesn’t preclude one from using the word no, doesn’t mean you let people take advantage of you, and doesn’t mean you don’t hold your ground in certain situations. As one works through their emotional immaturity that has caused them to be [B]reactive[/B] towards the world, they begin to [B]respond[/B] with authenticity and maturity. Was Gandhi mature and responsive or immature and reactive in this situation? I have no idea. Based upon the wisdom of my guru, we’ll forever have issues and that may have been one of his. However, you can be angry and fire someone and still have compassion for them in your heart. What I do know is that his leading of a peaceful revolution is the epitome of maturity. Most would resort to violence.

Where you are in the world makes little difference. We’re all brutalized and traumatized in one way or another, the headlines are just different. Few people on this planet maintain inner peace, no matter where they are. I remember feeling guilty that I had issues despite a wonderful upbringing. My guru quickly quashed those notions. We’re all in the same boat.

#70

A very good point David…I totally agree you can be angry with someone, fire them and still have compassion for them in your heart…I experienced this with a member on this site a while back…

And, whilst I think i understand what you are getting at, if I take what you say as literal, the last paragraph, then it just isn’t true that we are all brutalized and traumatised in one way or another…the degree to which I have suffered so far in my life, is miniscule in comparison to …where do I begin???

If we adopt a fully peaceful stance on issues, it is usually because we are not in the thick of the trouble. In reality, when we are in the thick of the trouble, adopting a peaceful stance might get you killed in the process, depending on the issue at hand of course…whilst I think of myself as a peaceful happy character, I can assure you that if someone were to be threatening the lives of my sons say, I will kill them without hesitation. So, when you are witnessing or experiencing wrongs, you will be reactive, you will respond with the level of say aggression needed for the situation at hand, this has nothing to do with emotional maturity.

#71

From a recent post on my website:

Ishwara pranidhana, meaning complete self-surrender to God, is the last and one of the thorniest and most complicated of the Niyamas as outlined by Patanjali. God by any name can be a mouthful for many of us. The idea of God is associated to so much dogma, so many interesting interpretations, and tainted by thousands of years of war and greed in the name of ?God,? that many of us feel alienated from the concept. From a yogic perspective, these associations are not an understanding of God, but of concept, and that concept is religion. Any concept formed of God cannot be true because God is limitless. Trying to understand this intricate yet subtle concept can be maddening. It can drive one to desperation.

Caroline Myss, the once Nun who lived in an abbey and internationally renowned speaker in the fields of human consciousness, spirituality and mysticism, health, energy medicine, and the science of medical intuition once asked, ?What is a mystic? A mystic is someone who is madly in love with the experience of God, not the debate of God or the knowledge of God but the direct experience of God.? When we reach the end of our rope trying to define God intellectually, many of us either begin or end a spiritual path. We either become seekers or lose faith that there is anything to seek. Both stages can lead to this direct experience of the Infinite. Ishwara can be Allahm Yahweh, Krishna, Brahma, God, or any Divine name you like, but these are usually still concepts, and not a direct experience. Many of us have not yet had that direct experience, so we are asked to surrender. This is a alarming thought for the intellectually bent ego.

Most of us only develop a complete faith in God in desperate times, more out of a sense of self-preservation than a deep burning desire to know the Infinite. Some of us are seekers from birth or at some juncture in life when we have run out of other answers. We can reach the direct experience through many paths, through sadness and pain, through desperation and even through bliss, but most human beings seem to need the hard knock version of God?s classroom. The great Sage Patanjali says in the Yoga Sutras that one can even attain the highest form of Samadhi, the final stage before kaivalya, if one can truly and fully surrender to God. Many of us are just trying to get through the day let alone reach Samadhi. Either way, our self-surrender should be free and unconditional.

Once we surrender, something seemingly magical happens. We have such stillness, and God, Brahma, whatever we call the Infinite, removes the egoic boundaries of any tradition that would cause us to feel disdain or skepticism. We would experience the heart of the sacred, the cosmic fire, the expansiveness of the truest version of our Self.

http://www.yogaforthenewworld.blogspot.com

#72

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58227]You are saying that they are only learning to debate to understand the viewpoint, no doubt to gain appreciation for other views and understanding to foster and love andrespect and not develop any fixation for your own view - so we can all live happily ever after, right? I think you fail to understand what wrong view means. If you call somebodies view wrong you are not saying, “Hey, you are free to have your view, together we enrichen the world and make it more interesting” you are saying, “Hey, your views are nonsense and the cause of your suffering, I will show the right view to end the suffering.”

I am afraid, like I observe with many Westerners approaching the dharmic tradition, you have a very romantic and wrong view of Buddhism. Buddhism does not at all teach that you should be fixed to any view, otherwise it would not teach as absolute that everything is impermenant. Otherwise it would not teach about right view and wrong view. Buddha did not just sit idle and say, “Hey, lets agree to disagree and live happily ever after” he actually went out there and and tried to convert people to his views, while condeming their own.

Any sensible and rational person knows that it is impossible for all views, philosophies, theories and opinions to be correct. How can flat earth theory and round earth theory be equally true? How can the statements “The soul pre-existed before this birth and has taken on many bodies in the past and will in the future” and “The soul was created at conception and will live once in its current body and then face judgement” be equally true? One view is right and one view is wrong or both are wrong.

Now how can you expect Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Buddhsits to agree to a silly statement like, “All religions are true” If all religions were true, why on earth would be Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist. If Hinduism is equally true as Islam then that means Hindu idol worship is as true as Islamic Allah worship - how many Muslims will you find that will agree with this?

I understand the intention is noble that we should all love one another, respect one another and live in harmony with one another. But the thinking behind it is is stupid. It is logically impossible for contradictory views to be both equally true. The dharmic religions and Abrahamic religions are mutually contradictory, they cannot both be equally true.

Simply put, if you do not defend your views when they are attacked, you lose the debate by default. There is no wisdom in not defending your views. When others can see you cannot defend them, they will reject such views.[/QUOTE]

SD I posted something about these debates not being for the purpose of defeating Non Buddhists , You have from this extrapolated things Ive not even touched upon you have pretended to quote me without even having the courtesy of using my words , and then sought to argue against points I did not make in the first place are you desperate for an argument because you are not going to get one.
You tell me I have a romantic veiw of Buddhism without even knowing my views on Buddhism except the one you project onto me. You then ramble on about some rediculous veiwpoint that Ive never mentioned , fixed veiw , I have never said nor heard or read any buddhist who beleives in permanence
where did I say this ?
You claim that the Buddha tried to convert people to his view , Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of Buddhadharma knows it is non proseltysing and inspires by example .
SD Buddhists talk of three wisdoms , Received wisdom that from a teacher , you have not received this , Intellectual wisdom , that from study , you have some small smattering of buddhadharma but it is not great , and experiential knowledge you have no knowledge of this , the last wisdom of course being the most important the other two on their own are dry and lead not to freedom but keep us in bondage , I can at least say I have some knowledge in all three. It is because of this nearly impossible to have dialogue with your limited understanding of the Buddhadharma , Your views on it are well aired on this forum.
The purpose of these debates is as follows ,( by the way there are no non Buddhists in these debates you and me are not invited to the party)

A Tibetan monastery is the centre for the teaching of Buddhist doctrine and a gathering place for those seeking inward peace and spiritual growth.
The central purpose of Tibetan monastic debate is to defeat misconceptions , to establish the correct view and to clear away objections to that view.To those ends and with great effort the monks engage in debate dillegently seeking to learn well the words and to fully understand the dharma , debate for monks is not mere accademics. The main activity of the monastery is prayer not debate or study.
Although a monk may become very excited and object vigourously and vehemently to the views of the opponent , the purpose of the debate is not to defeat or embarass the opponent , thereby gaining some victory for himself.
So my contention that debate is not for opposing non Buddhists is correct , again a rudimentary understanding and experience of dharma is that the battle is the internal one .not the battle with others

The one who has conqured themselves is a far greater than one who has defeated a thousand times a thousand men"
Siddhartha Gautama

“A man is not called wise because he talks and talks again , but if he is peaceful , loving and fearless then he in truth is called wise.” SG

#73

[QUOTE=David;58162]Certainly.

As this is a forum about religion, cultural, racial, historical, and ideological factors come into play.

Then theres the emotional immaturity of the populace of this forum, the inability to [B]empathize[/B] with others. After all, the issues aforementioned are by no means not sensitive.[/QUOTE]
With emotional maturity comes compassion and empathy. Discussions of religion, culture, history, etc are simply what is being reacted to.[/QUOTE]

Yes. You are right in a way.

I believe its a little more complicated than that though. On a subliminal level, a conflict between differing ideologies/culture/civilization, superiority complex, etc and emotional immaturity (of which I am in no way, immune to) resulting or arising out these beliefs is responsible for the state of the forum.

#74

[QUOTE=David;58231]I’m slowly connecting to the reality that EVERYTHING I view about the physical world is a projection of what is going on inside of me. As I (SLOWLY) mature on an emotional level and connect to a feeling of inner peace and joy, I see that in the world. Where there was once conflict, there is peace. Where there was once anger regarding what was transpiring, there is acceptance.

It’s REALLY hard for me to detach from those negative emotions at times and realize that what I’m seeing in the world is what’s going on inside of me and taking personal responsibility for that. I’m slowly understanding what Ghandi meant about being the change you want to see. I have a long way to go but at least I’m past the point of blaming others.[/QUOTE]

I partly agree with this.

Sometimes there is conflict in the world outside of the internal despite our emotional condition.

Take me for example. I always encountered immense racism and anti-Hindu bigotry as a child. I had no idea what I did to deserve that treatment when all I did was play, eat, and study like an average child.

As I grew older, I realize the racism I received was not out of wanton hatred or the imposition of internal conflict on the world but that of differing ideology, culture, etc…

Abrahamic vs Dharmic is what it ultimately boils down to.

[U]Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs[/U] - Impure religions, backwards, product of inferior culture, illogical views, so on

[U]Christianity, Judaism, Islam[/U] - Pure, the only right, the right way, godly, etc

#75

On a subliminal level, a conflict between differing ideologies/culture/civilization, superiority complex, etc and emotional immaturity (of which I am in no way, immune to) resulting or arising out these beliefs is responsible for the state of the forum.

Come on Neitzsche stop joking with us. You have been the most strongest condemner of Western-Abrahamic civilisation on this forum. Stop pretending you don’t have beliefs of superiority. I had to start an entire thread to defend Western people from your hate once :stuck_out_tongue: You have nationalistic superiority beliefs and I have cultural superiority beliefs. While you were raving about India winning the cricket world cup and the Indian students outdoing Western students, that had no effect on me. We both have superiority beliefs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing something to be superior than another - as long as you prove it and support it. If the West believes it is superior - it is fully entitled to holding this view. The fact of whether it is true or not is another matter.

#76

[QUOTE=David;58231]I’m slowly connecting to the reality that EVERYTHING I view about the physical world is a projection of what is going on inside of me. As I (SLOWLY) mature on an emotional level and connect to a feeling of inner peace and joy, I see that in the world. Where there was once conflict, there is peace. Where there was once anger regarding what was transpiring, there is acceptance.

It’s REALLY hard for me to detach from those negative emotions at times and realize that what I’m seeing in the world is what’s going on inside of me and taking personal responsibility for that. I’m slowly understanding what Ghandi meant about being the change you want to see. I have a long way to go but at least I’m past the point of blaming others.[/QUOTE]

I can understand that deep down everything is just a projection of consciousness at the deepest level our being and events and circumstances that happen in our life are influenced by our thoughts. But don’t you think it is wrong to say that EVERYTHING is your projection? Surely, I am not your projection. My behaviours are not your projection either. If somebody comes running at you with an axe with intent to murder, they are not your projection either.

I certainly agree we need to change ourselves - but by changing ourselves we cannot change others and we certainly cannot change the world. To change others and change the world we need to make an effort to change it.

In the case of the forum the change is simple. We must agree to terms and conditions and rules of usage of this forum. Obviously all views must be tolerated including the “my religion is better than yours” views, but how people dialogue with each other must meet a minimum decorum. Personal insults should not be tolerated and personal attacks on a person’s race should also not be tolerated. If we have such rules in place, then I assure you there will be no need to close the religious forum, the religion forum will become a better place overnight.

There are plenty of religion forums online and they survive - so why shouldn’t this one?

#77

Wroof…wroof…wroof…wroof…c’mon Max. Let’s get the hell outta here.

#78

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58285]I can understand that deep down everything is just a projection of consciousness at the deepest level our being and events and circumstances that happen in our life are [B]influenced[/B] by our thoughts. But don’t you think it is wrong to say that EVERYTHING is your projection? Surely, I am not your projection. My behaviours are not your projection either. If somebody comes running at you with an axe with intent to murder, they are not your projection either.[/QUOTE]
You are not my projection. How I view you, is. What you say on this forum doesn’t bother me in the least. I’m not reactive to you. You don’t cause me to react emotionally. You don’t mirror anything for me. In fact, I like you. A lot.

You drive others nuts. But it’s not YOU. YOU have nothing to do with it.

Take Nietzsche for example. I’m about as completely unsurprised that he faced fierce racism as a child as you can be. He has been traumatized. He hasn’t properly integrated those experiences on an emotional level so he’s projecting those unintegrated emotions onto others here that are reminding him in one way or another of those terrible experiences. He is triggered over and over again.

I wish I could give the guy a big hug. I feel his pain.

His emotional reactions then cause emotional reactions in others because THEY are being reminded of something THEY haven’t properly dealt with. It’s a vicious cycle that, once you break just once, becomes clear as day. You see it everywhere. You see the 3 year old boy having a tantrum in the 45 year old man berating the waiter at the restaurant and you feel the pain of the little boy who didn’t understand why he was singled out, in the forum poster. Compassion and acceptance comes easily. Until then, we unconsciously react over and over and over again.

As I mentioned in previous posts, EVERYONE is traumatized and EVERYONE is experiencing this. For me to argue with someone about personal levels of trauma is pointless because it’s within us all.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58285]I certainly agree we need to change ourselves - but by changing ourselves we cannot change others and we certainly cannot change the world. To change others and change the world we need to make an effort to change it. [/QUOTE]
By changing ourselves we change how we perceive others because we stop projecting our emotions onto them. We stop reacting to them. All of us a sudden they no longer bother us. We accept that they’re on their journey and feel compassion for them and wish them the best. You cannot change anyone except yourself. I will, however, say you can’t think your way out of trauma. You must enter the emotional body.

Once we do that, then we create space for others to do the same.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58285]In the case of the forum the change is simple. We must agree to terms and conditions and rules of usage of this forum. Obviously all views must be tolerated including the “my religion is better than yours” views, but how people dialogue with each other must meet a minimum decorum. Personal insults should not be tolerated and personal attacks on a person’s race should also not be tolerated. If we have such rules in place, then I assure you there will be no need to close the religious forum, the religion forum will become a better place overnight.[/QUOTE]
What I allow in this forum is necessary for some to be authentic on their path and provide opportunity to face internal demons. If we all sit around drinking tea and [B]acting[/B] nice, no real work is being done. I’d prefer to allow it across all forums, but not enough people are ready for that. Hopefully, one day.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58285]There are plenty of religion forums online and they survive - so why shouldn’t this one?[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn’t this one survive?

#79

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;58284]Come on Neitzsche stop joking with us. You have been the most strongest condemner of Western-Abrahamic civilisation on this forum. Stop pretending you don’t have beliefs of superiority. I had to start an entire thread to defend Western people from your hate once :stuck_out_tongue: You have nationalistic superiority beliefs and I have cultural superiority beliefs. While you were raving about India winning the cricket world cup and the Indian students outdoing Western students, that had no effect on me. We both have superiority beliefs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing something to be superior than another - as long as you prove it and support it. If the West believes it is superior - it is fully entitled to holding this view. The fact of whether it is true or not is another matter.[/QUOTE]

No, not really.

What I dislike about Western civilization are the influence from Abrahamic religions and their economic/political/social ideologies.

I do not dislike their intellectual traditions. In fact, I am a huge fan of it.

PERSIA. Out of those 5 things that constitute the definition of a “civilization,” I dislike 3/5 in Western civilization. The majority, in other words.

I dislike the way Western supremacy has been inculcated into the majority of Westerners.

I do not dislike Westerners, per se. I admit though, it is often difficult for me to separate people from ideology.

I didn’t care that India won the [B]CRICKET[/B] world cup. Actually, I was happy that India’s assertion on a global scale is finally starting to appear in a variety of places. If its in a world cup, then whoopdie doo.

Believe it or not, I hate cricket. In Hyderabad, my parents enrolled me into a cricket training camp of sorts. I hated every minute of it.

In conclusion, I do indeed have feelings of superiority. However, they are not absolute. I do not hate Western civilization completely. In fact, I find several things I can admire about it.

In fact, my feelings of superiority are only limited to Western civilization. I respect all other cultures and religions equally.

#80

[QUOTE=David;58295]You are not my projection. How I view you, is. What you say on this forum doesn’t bother me in the least. I’m not reactive to you. You don’t cause me to react emotionally. You don’t mirror anything for me. In fact, I like you. A lot.

You drive others nuts. But it’s not YOU. YOU have nothing to do with it.

Take Nietzsche for example. I’m about as completely unsurprised that he faced fierce racism as a child as you can be. He has been traumatized. He hasn’t properly integrated those experiences on an emotional level so he’s projecting those unintegrated emotions onto others here that are reminding him in one way or another of those terrible experiences. He is triggered over and over again.

I wish I could give the guy a big hug. I feel his pain.

His emotional reactions then cause emotional reactions in others because THEY are being reminded of something THEY haven’t properly dealt with. It’s a vicious cycle that, once you break just once, becomes clear as day. You see it everywhere. You see the 3 year old boy having a tantrum in the 45 year old man berating the waiter at the restaurant and you feel the pain of the little boy who didn’t understand why he was singled out, in the forum poster. Compassion and acceptance comes easily. Until then, we unconsciously react over and over and over again.

As I mentioned in previous posts, EVERYONE is traumatized and EVERYONE is experiencing this. For me to argue with someone about personal levels of trauma is pointless because it’s within us all.

By changing ourselves we change how we perceive others because we stop projecting our emotions onto them. We stop reacting to them. All of us a sudden they no longer bother us. We accept that they’re on their journey and feel compassion for them and wish them the best. You cannot change anyone except yourself. I will, however, say you can’t think your way out of trauma. You must enter the emotional body.

Once we do that, then we create space for others to do the same.

What I allow in this forum is necessary for some to be authentic on their path and provide opportunity to face internal demons. If we all sit around drinking tea and [B]acting[/B] nice, no real work is being done. I’d prefer to allow it across all forums, but not enough people are ready for that. Hopefully, one day.

Why wouldn’t this one survive?[/QUOTE]

David, please stop making me look like a emotionally unstable child.

I don’t care about the racism or bigotry I endured. I don’t unconditionally hate the people that were racist to me.

I always help people with their school work and always help out in my community. In fact, I had the highest number of volunteer hours in my grade (I think it was around 100 hours), during a school year.

Even when people are racist/mean to me, I help them. One day in my Calculus class, people in my group were making fun of our mutant gods. After a couple of minutes of controlling my anger, I resumed helping them.

When I was with my group raising money for the Invisible Children one day, I received ignorant and racist comments to my cries of “Help donate money to kids in Uganda!”

“Our kids need more help.”
“No amount of money will get them out of Hell.”
“Do those blacks even know how to use the money we give them?”

What I care about are the [B]ROOTS[/B] of that racism, the REASON WHY people are so racist and bigoted towards others.

The answer is quite obvious:

Ignorance of history.

The contrast between the material superiority of the West with the material paucity in the rest of the world.

Supremacist ideologies (esp Abrahamic religions).

I am an Indian and a Hindu by birth, so of course my denunciations concern these subjects.

I understand what you are trying to say David. I really do.

However, not all things are based on the imposition of emotions on the outside world. Some things are simply a reality.

Like racism.
Like Anti-Hindu bigotry.

And that is why the way I am.

EDIT: I am not a very huggy person. Thanks for the kindness though!