I don't think i remember 1 thing they said. Like most 'specialists' i ever seen on dutch, and with some nuances any yurpean (let alone usian) channel, they were eurocentric without exception. Not surprising perhaps if you see how unique is someone like Noam Chomski. They also seemed obsessed with projecting their version of history upon the other culture. Quite sincerely thinking that what they 'knew' moved the people overthere.
A bit like that man on tv yesterday, that had been measuring Papua's in Nazi style 50years ago, "i was young and 'innocent' then" is what he thought. It shows when you start out without thinking, chances you change that aproach are minor.
He did slip of tongue into the racist jargon of old tho.
The title i choose is because i am an opponent of religion, any, and that alJazeera definetly likes the least in my comments. I really despise religions in most respects.
Simply put i think they served only 1 good cause somewhat,(the moral/social one) and every bad cause there ever was.
The reason for that are both complex and simple. Complex because they are many, and because they pop up evrywhere through history in slightly different situations.
Simple because in essence they are only based on one thing: power.
worldly power, social power, power to instill privilige.
the sociopathic aspect of the individuals in the priest classes is another complication, the power to cure , forgive, and comfort is taken from the individual,
telling people they are basically 'good for nothing' , once you believe that, you will believe evrything.
The authority of the person to provide moral change, is limited by the church since ancient days, with mantra's claiming their truth, their justice or good, is the sacred, even only one.
That is because the church does not serve moral advance.
It serves basically her own interest, survival, the priest class, the authority's that depend on the priest and ceremonial wonderdoers, and in all a system that delivers as much of any power it can to the priest class and what has allways been the fertile mix of the upperclass and the priest class. (perhaps jewish can claim cultural coherence but so can gipsy's, judaist system was (for) the exact same purpose))
It used to be many not inheriting nobles went priest, and something of the kind is still happening, fallible upperclass weirdo's need human sheep to make a living.
Some people will scrye for they cannot without faith, but they are without faith?
what do they hope?
Here the christian dominance failed, altho like half of the ppl still knows like whole of the bible to the boring point of being able to deliberate on peculiar detail, just like me, there are also a load of people who rili have no idea,
for whom maria and eve are contemporary's in a cheap SF or fantasy story.
Thats pretty refreshing btw i find. Also we have a great diversion between roman katholics and protestants. The younger generations of protestants , i think deliver the most atheists, even the most budhist, and probably even more muslims then the roman katholics.
The reason is quite simple, katholics belief in devils and a load of other stuf no protestant ever seen or believed in. For them islam or budhism is something from hell. For some odd reason they think their God created most people to live in hell.
anyhow on with the subject, because i think we protestants are the heathens right?
That is the traditional dispute of the savage against the culture btw. for scientific referral.
well in my case it is personal. My grandmum was an ultrastrict ultrareligious 19th century protestant renewer in all her humbleness for the church. (she was absolute in all of that)
oh i remember the antiracism discussion with her emotionally was at the primitive level of religion..at first..
she was so old fashioned that when i think of church i think like the protestant:
burn the catholic churches, burn the idols and the institutes of the pope. But after two century's, i realise not only their holy wickedness, but also the protestant insanity should be critically watched.
unhypocritically regarded. I had that as a child, and it was quite a shock, i didn't like the single bit of it. bah.
I was a spiritual and curious child, so i looked on a lot, what i came to like was zen budhism, because it goes back to the essence, wich is nothing, and that is still the prettiest relation i have with religion.
i also liked bhagwan, for his sincere attempt to transmit what enlightenment begotten
the betrodden path of western lady's and laddy's. I don't doubt he was a light himself. His attendance of the scene on the planet has allways meant a pleasure to me. I hate it he was killed and sincerely suspect the CIA. He had become a very rich and powerfull person, and he was slowly turning into the usian dali lama himself, so i think this is why:
Rather then having a dalai lama and a recognised spiritual leader compromise their state they crucified him. Bhagwan was anti-impi avant la lettre.
His spirit is called osho, but with budha at the table, einstein, obama and kim il sung in mind i don't really need him much. I always went for my own enlightenment, with plenty disregard for any spiritual lead that was recognised.
Honestly i never found enlightenment hard to achieve, i think i was 13 or so when i thought i had it done mostly, ofcourse it kept occupying me for much longer.
for example i remember how carlos castaneda first book strongly structured my spiritual development for years. the 3 enemy's.. i still live like that. so i will tell you.
the idea is the writer, carlos meets an indian spiritual leader, he is a scientist, cultural anthropologist, and fascinated with hallucinogens.
It is known he has done interviews and took trips with several old native americans.
he had to go much down south to find enough cultural coherence to still come in touch with the old story's.
anyhow wether this inspired him, or he really put together this much of the story as he could i cannot judge very well. I think he has allways remained it was rather authentic. The old indian, don juan, tells the following:
to be a free human, so to walk the spiritual path to where the responsibility and sometimes the will of the individual is to walk it, well there are different ways,
Here is the point to stop when you don't. If it is not within your own idea, to
pursue spiritual growth, you don't need to read what follows.(1)
this is a rather dreamy way to put it, you might also say to try to get a maximum practical spiritual reward of your attempts to do the sane thing,
it would be practical wouldn't it? to have a little more of these special powers many of us at least now and then experience. And when you are moreless 'enlightened' anyhow not bothered much by anything, terribly zen, because there is nothing, specifically nothing worth to be bothered about.
okay so this is how you do it.
in 3 simple steps. however, you have to really take these 3 steps.
you have to beat 3 enemy's that is all. It is really easy if you really try.
The first enemy is fear.
listen, because it not just 'fear like that' as if you are watching a horror movie or so. It has a little to do, because it is the fear that would stop you from helping someone who is terribly wounded.
in budhism it is also the first rule,
budha studied totemism, (like i practice islam here;) totems where the better binding aspect of the pashtun at the time. Actually totems still were what kept the pashtun in pakistan, but that besides.
so i figure he came to these 3 rules in the same way as carlos castaneda, he interpreted the old story's in his own words.(without much of the hocus pocus)
at least it was the problem he used to have with tribalism.
in budhism it is called 'expectation'
now u can see fear and expectation have a lot to do with another can you?
if you fear something will happen, it means you are seriously expecting something will happen.
and indeed budha continues to tell that after you conquered your expectations you will stumble upon the next issue.
well so does don juan, and since i remember what he said, but forgot the teachings of budha i think the version of don juan is more comprehensive and to the person.
Budhism these days is also associated with cults, although the whole philosophy is one that stresses the individuals development.
When i was told the teachings of budha i hated religions enough to try and forget them still.
so the enemy that is called fear, is also doubt, will i do this or do that?
the same question is expectation, (either one of the things will happen, but you can also regard it as fear, what will happen if this or that happens.
Now there are two ways to counter fears, The first thing is to think out the line of thought clearly either way. Analyse how each is influenced by fear or expectation.
But this is difficult, you have to be done with prejudices, make beliefs, lies, truths , and a whole lot of things before you can, so similar to budhism tribalism hand s the method.
Fortunately there is a simple and effective method within reach for every human to stop fear . We are not really talking treatment finalised old age chronic patients here, because most people will only learn this with some help of a spiritual leader,
it would require extensive guidance.
But for yourself as an individual you can do a lot if you get the grasp of the story so far.
The method is silencing your internal dialogue. Now most of you, because, will want to , oh i remember how budha calls that now. he calls it 'doubt', go..
i don't have an internal dialogue. you say you don't think at all? (yes../no..)
your internal dialogue is not your second enemy, it's just a hindrance on the path,
the path to 'clear thinking' because that is what happens when you manage to silence your internal dialogue, you will still be able to think, but you will not be influenced by fear (or confusion, doubt, the internal dialogue).
That is a different way of thinking, and allthough the spiritual path allows for illogical steps, these are not something that can't be done without.
So it is a pretty clear way of thinking. i have no way to proof that, except perhaps by attempting to show some clarity of my mind of myself here and there, wich i try.
So how do we stop this internal dialogue? in fact it is by meditation, it is a very easy and unchallenging meditation though, you could do it driving in a bus or train, or sitting anywhere.
It is not advised to do it while driving, because when you are not used to these things they can be quite surprising and it's a bit of a waste when it works well for you if you have to pay much attention to anything else.
i think i could do it on a bicycle tho, when you know yourself a bit better it's not surprising anymore at all, would you have some 'true vision' or so , but perhaps these things can still be shocking when u are unused to it.
the thing is allow none of your own voice. pay attention to your thoughts, unless you practised this before, (eg. through zen budhist meditation) and even then if you are unfamiliar with the method, do you think?
people usually think all the time (i don't think i do). obviously when you think all teh time you have not silenced your internal dialogue. But the best way to clear it, is to recognise it is a dialogue, so that must be the obsession. see that it is a dialogue,
do i do this right? that is a question to yourself, what follows is the other part of your internal dialogue, but because you haven't practised this, it will be confusing at first.
the parts of the dialogue will tell you they are the other. It is because they are based on fear, and you will be inspired by fear to think you can't do without.
anything that is based on fear solely is misleading, there must allways be more,
it is not harmfull at all to quieten your own internal dialogue. It is relaxed.
Do you think because you don't doubt anymore, or because you are not bothering yourself with futile questions anymore you can't think anymore?
one problem with those teachings is any disbeliever can be so ridiculous;)
well succes with that, in the book don juan tells when it works, when u managed, it comes with an audible pang in the neck, and for me it did.
In principle after that you will be different you don't have to quieten your internal dialogue anymore, because you did. Funny but true. You will allways be with the truth. Because you learned to do without the dialogue your thoughts will be clear. In budhism it is called enlightenment, and it is only the first step.
the proces of stopping your internal dialogue doesn't come without stopping your fears. fears include, shame, prejudice, common fears, faillure, your own limitations, looks, modes, other people, evrything.
Think of it this way,
if something is the matter and you (still, accidently , it happened to me i am very non-violent) feel fear, ok no problem, think straight and find a clever way out, don't get overcome with fear it is not about scary or frightening. The method works quite ok with danger, yet that is not how or why you spiritually beat the fear inside your thoughts.
But if you are at home, or at some fine place, why would you bother about for example what other people think? that is definitely fear. That is why looks are more important here then they seem. Caring about looks pretty much means you surely know fear in your thoughts. Wich is one reason why so many of you are far beyond. (and why sanyas wore orange)
oh well
tell me if you had the peng in your neck, and i'll tell you what is your next enemy,
or read those 'lessons of don juan'.
(1) It will not do you any good, it would be 'to much asked' of a usual person, and it is very hard if it is not within the scope of your personality anyhow. I can't imagine i could have done it without the yoga i did between i was 10 and 13 for example, or without my complete hermitism most of my life, the 'stoa' , otoh, there used to be stoicans (omg they are secret..) in greece 3000 years ago, so i am not alone.
i guess they are secret "confidential" because stoa, exactly like al queda is supposed to, means 'base', yeah it's anticapitalist and i suppose as such antizionist but still..
what fucked up. (online dictionairys are still more zionist then the encyclopedia's)
No comments:
Post a Comment