"Smorgasbord" Religion, Being of a Faith, and the Personal Journey

[Nick_A]

I take what's behind door #3:

I'm an idiot and you're an idiot. And that's OK. We'll figure things out eventually.

That's why I like you Path. You have genuine humility. Modern society has either lost it or as a whole, become afraid to admit it. It has wrongly become associated with low self esteem. This is why comedy has replaced humor. Real humor is the ability to laugh at oneself and we've come to prefer laughing at others which comedy allows us to do.

I've read that when a person begins to seriously become aware of their relationship to a transcendent potential they begin to acknowledge that they are an idiot. They try to explain it to their friends who think they are an idiot for thinking such things. Now a person is in the ideal place psychologically to begin to inwardly grow since all agree that they are an idiot.

 

[path_of_one]

I've read that when a person begins to seriously become aware of their relationship to a transcendent potential they begin to acknowledge that they are an idiot. They try to explain it to their friends who think they are an idiot for thinking such things. Now a person is in the ideal place psychologically to begin to inwardly grow since all agree that they are an idiot.

I find this amusing.

I am not sure I'm in an ideal place psychologically, because most of my friends and family agree that none of us knows very much, and the more we study, the more we realize all the stuff we really don't know. So, you could say, they are not cooperative in telling me I am an idiot. Overall, we agree that it is wisest to acknowledge our faults and limitations, our weaknesses and stupid mistakes. Then we have some chance to work toward rectifying this.

I find I don't really fix my faults through knowing answers about much, but rather just through a natural process that starts with acknowledging my faults, including my (and probably most people's) propensity to ignore my faults. If I keep myself aware of my faults and weaknesses, then they don't sneak up on me. Self-control is not far away under those circumstances.

I think in part what I am looking for in a community is one that is accepting but not blindly so. What I mean by that is that I do need a community that accepts me for what and who I am in this moment. I do not need any more people to tell me I am going to hell because I currently cannot believe XYZ doctrine, or the like. I don't find that terribly useful. However, I also do not need a group that acts as if none of us have faults or weaknesses. The whole point is to have a supportive community that is working on emptying the little self so as to embody the Divine. My experience is that's only possible in so far as I'm willing to be uncomfy and take some hard looks at myself and my lifestyle, thoughts, and feelings and be as bluntly honest as I can with myself about what is beneficial and what is not. I don't have to beat myself up about it. I love me and I have compassion for myself just as I do for others. But loving and forgiving myself doesn't mean excusing poor behavior, thought, or a lack of mindfulness, all of which I sometimes display.

What I find problematic is that many religious groups seem to go too far toward the ends of a spectrum, rather than finding balance. Either they stray too far into believing themselves to be fine as they are (be it justified by "saved by grace" or a focus on self-esteem or whatever) or they stray too far into believing themselves to be worthless sinners and beyond help. Either way, there ain't much action toward doing something about it, from what I've seen. I'm an action-oriented person and I'd like a community that is geared toward this, where people forgive each other and themselves, but they don't excuse each other or themselves. It's a fine line, but it seems like a good idea and works for me so far.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Where I have bolded, my experience says different. I do not see competition, nor a single source of truth being offered, nor certitude.

Anyway, aren't you banned???!!!

s.

There are always exceptions. But I would hazard a guess the Buddhism you have chosen is not that representative of that in the regions where it is endemic.


And the banned played Waltzing Matilda

 

[Saltmeister]

And the banned played Waltzing Matilda

What use does a Briton have for an Australian song?

BTW, I think Snoopy is a Yankee.

 

[Tao_Equus]

What use does a Briton have for an Australian song?

BTW, I think Snoopy is a Yankee.

Its also of undoubtedly Celtic influence...but take your line of choice*.... the good thing about a random statement is it can mean anything you want!!

And I am pretty sure Snoopy is actually English, poor guy.

YouTube - The pogues - The Band Played Waltzing Matilda

*I choose blind and insane returned ..... since there is a theme of self-deprication emerging...

 

[Nick_A]

I find this amusing.

I am not sure I'm in an ideal place psychologically, because most of my friends and family agree that none of us knows very much, and the more we study, the more we realize all the stuff we really don't know. So, you could say, they are not cooperative in telling me I am an idiot. Overall, we agree that it is wisest to acknowledge our faults and limitations, our weaknesses and stupid mistakes. Then we have some chance to work toward rectifying this.

I find I don't really fix my faults through knowing answers about much, but rather just through a natural process that starts with acknowledging my faults, including my (and probably most people's) propensity to ignore my faults. If I keep myself aware of my faults and weaknesses, then they don't sneak up on me. Self-control is not far away under those circumstances.


I think in part what I am looking for in a community is one that is accepting but not blindly so. What I mean by that is that I do need a community that accepts me for what and who I am in this moment. I do not need any more people to tell me I am going to hell because I currently cannot believe XYZ doctrine, or the like. I don't find that terribly useful. However, I also do not need a group that acts as if none of us have faults or weaknesses. The whole point is to have a supportive community that is working on emptying the little self so as to embody the Divine. My experience is that's only possible in so far as I'm willing to be uncomfy and take some hard looks at myself and my lifestyle, thoughts, and feelings and be as bluntly honest as I can with myself about what is beneficial and what is not. I don't have to beat myself up about it. I love me and I have compassion for myself just as I do for others. But loving and forgiving myself doesn't mean excusing poor behavior, thought, or a lack of mindfulness, all of which I sometimes display.

What I find problematic is that many religious groups seem to go too far toward the ends of a spectrum, rather than finding balance. Either they stray too far into believing themselves to be fine as they are (be it justified by "saved by grace" or a focus on self-esteem or whatever) or they stray too far into believing themselves to be worthless sinners and beyond help. Either way, there ain't much action toward doing something about it, from what I've seen. I'm an action-oriented person and I'd like a community that is geared toward this, where people forgive each other and themselves, but they don't excuse each other or themselves. It's a fine line, but it seems like a good idea and works for me so far.

Hi Path

Does"idiot" have to have a negative connotation? When Socrates said "I know nothing" was it a put down or an expression of wisdom? If it is indeed wisdom, how can it have a negative connotation?

You and your friends agree that the more you know, the more you don't know which is one of the limitations of head knowledge. That is being an intelligent idiot. It is a solid foundation.

The whole point is to have a supportive community that is working on emptying the little self so as to embody the Divine.

If you truly want this, does it really begin with what you previously wrote?

I find I don't really fix my faults through knowing answers about much, but rather just through a natural process that starts with acknowledging my faults, including my (and probably most people's) propensity to ignore my faults. If I keep myself aware of my faults and weaknesses, then they don't sneak up on me. Self-control is not far away under those circumstances.

You seem to be starting with the idea of judging oneself rather to "know thyself." The difference is that when one strives to know thyself, it should be free of emotional judgment. When a scientist studies an object to determine what it essentially is, he cannot judge its worth by what his mother said. It just clouds the ability to "see."

To consciously know thyself is to experience what we ARE: our "mechanics as creatures of reaction. The idea isn't to judge but to experience. As soon as we judge, we lose the experience. This isn't to say that we kill for experience but rather become able to experience murder in the heart without prejudgement

This is very hard to do since our tendency is to judge and cover up as we've been conditioned. Sometimes it takes years to get out of our own way for the sake of a real experience. That is where a healthy community with this quality of awareness comes in. People share in helping others in pursuit of this freedom rather than judge.

What I find problematic is that many religious groups seem to go too far toward the ends of a spectrum, rather than finding balance. Either they stray too far into believing themselves to be fine as they are (be it justified by "saved by grace" or a focus on self-esteem or whatever) or they stray too far into believing themselves to be worthless sinners and beyond help. Either way, there ain't much action toward doing something about it, from what I've seen. I'm an action-oriented person and I'd like a community that is geared toward this, where people forgive each other and themselves, but they don't excuse each other or themselves. It's a fine line, but it seems like a good idea and works for me so far.

It cannot be any other way. The secular world is a product of imbalance. Negative emotional expression is just a normal attribute for sustaining imbalance. The only community that can deal with it is one that strives for a quality of consciousness that can stand against our slavery to habitual reactions. That means it must value striving towards conscious self awareness, will, and "balance" between our thought, emotion, and sensory connections to the external world.

I believe when we have this intent and consciously strive for experiential knowledge of the human condition, it invites help from above.

Psalm 51

6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts [a] ;
you teach [b] me wisdom in the inmost place. 7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

This is help from above. We can work on the outer man, but for the inner man and our "inner parts" we need a quality of cleansing we are incapable of. What we can do is strive to get out of our own way so as to let help in. A community aware of this can help each other. It cannot be done through judgment but requires being open to the impartial experience of what we ARE. That in itself is worthy of help. No artificial flavorings needed.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Path

Does"idiot" have to have a negative connotation? When Socrates said "I know nothing" was it a put down or an expression of wisdom? If it is indeed wisdom, how can it have a negative connotation?

You and your friends agree that the more you know, the more you don't know which is one of the limitations of head knowledge. That is being an intelligent idiot. It is a solid foundation.



If you truly want this, does it really begin with what you previously wrote?



You seem to be starting with the idea of judging oneself rather to "know thyself." The difference is that when one strives to know thyself, it should be free of emotional judgment. When a scientist studies an object to determine what it essentially is, he cannot judge its worth by what his mother said. It just clouds the ability to "see."

To consciously know thyself is to experience what we ARE: our "mechanics as creatures of reaction. The idea isn't to judge but to experience. As soon as we judge, we lose the experience. This isn't to say that we kill for experience but rather become able to experience murder in the heart without prejudgement

This is very hard to do since our tendency is to judge and cover up as we've been conditioned. Sometimes it takes years to get out of our own way for the sake of a real experience. That is where a healthy community with this quality of awareness comes in. People share in helping others in pursuit of this freedom rather than judge.



It cannot be any other way. The secular world is a product of imbalance. Negative emotional expression is just a normal attribute for sustaining imbalance. The only community that can deal with it is one that strives for a quality of consciousness that can stand against our slavery to habitual reactions. That means it must value striving towards conscious self awareness, will, and "balance" between our thought, emotion, and sensory connections to the external world.

I believe when we have this intent and consciously strive for experiential knowledge of the human condition, it invites help from above.



This is help from above. We can work on the outer man, but for the inner man and our "inner parts" we need a quality of cleansing we are incapable of. What we can do is strive to get out of our own way so as to let help in. A community aware of this can help each other. It cannot be done through judgment but requires being open to the impartial experience of what we ARE. That in itself is worthy of help. No artificial flavorings needed.

One thing I should have added Path is that by coming to see what we ARE, invites to experience an inner reality we deny.

20th WCP: Plato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysis

At this juncture the new point of view is stated by Glaucon and he put Forward a form of what was later to be known as a social contract theory, arguing we are only moral because, it pays us or we have to be. Glaucon describes the historical evolution of the society where justice as a necessity had become the shield of the weaker. In the primitive stage of society without law and government, man was free to do whatever he likes. So the stronger few enjoyed the life at the sufferance of the weaker many. The weaker, however, realised that they suffered more injustice. Faced with this situation they came to an agreement and instituted law and government through a sort of social contract and preached the philosophy of just. Therefore, justice in this way something artificial and unnatural. It is the "product of convention". It is through this artificial rule of justice and law that the natural selfishness of man is chained. A dictate of the weaker many, for the interest of the weaker many, as against the natural and superior power of the stronger few.
Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

This is the inner cleaning referred to in Psalm 51. Where modern religion and ethics concerns itself with external morality, what I am referring to do is becoming able "To Be" human from the depth of ones being, from real understanding, rather then acting a part for public consumption. That is the essence of religion I am drawn to.

 

[path_of_one]

Hi Path

Does"idiot" have to have a negative connotation?

Hi-

It doesn't have to, but words are what we make of them. Idiot has traditionally had a negative connotation. It was used to describe a person with a low IQ. That's different from not knowing anything. Now, its use expanded and it can be used derogatorily or in humor.

If you truly want this, does it really begin with what you previously wrote?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I write a lot of things and I'm not sure what you're referring to.

You seem to be starting with the idea of judging oneself rather to "know thyself." The difference is that when one strives to know thyself, it should be free of emotional judgment. When a scientist studies an object to determine what it essentially is, he cannot judge its worth by what his mother said. It just clouds the ability to "see."

I do not buy into the idea that we can be free from emotional judgment, but I do think we can examine our emotions and choose beneficial ones. Other than that, I am not sure about the difference between judging and knowing. If I see that something I think or do is unbeneficial for myself, it doesn't mean I get all emotionally negative about it. But I call a spade a spade. Knowing one lies doesn't make the lying stop. We have to choose to quit lying.

To consciously know thyself is to experience what we ARE: our "mechanics as creatures of reaction. The idea isn't to judge but to experience. As soon as we judge, we lose the experience. This isn't to say that we kill for experience but rather become able to experience murder in the heart without prejudgement

I'm not sure what you're saying. We aren't just creatures of reaction, but also of creation. We can choose creative action and planning rather than just reacting to whatever comes our way, so it seems like this is an integral part of the human experience. That we can judge is part of our human condition and warrants examining. As for murder, I strive to avoid this in my heart and mind as well as (obviously) my actions. I don't see the point in doing, thinking or feeling unbeneficial things if I can do otherwise. I don't see myself in a negative way, but I look at my actions and thoughts and feelings from as objective a place as possible, and what their consequences are. When I can do better, I tell myself I can do better. I try my best not to waste time and effort on shame, guilt, or embarrassment. None of these things do anything beneficial and are a waste of energy. Rather, I try to focus on the disparity between my best and my not-so-best, and move toward my best, consistently seeking that this is improved. It seems to work on a number of fronts in human life.

I believe when we have this intent and consciously strive for experiential knowledge of the human condition, it invites help from above.

I also believe it invites the Divine to assist us, or more aptly, I think it awakens the Divine within us.

We can work on the outer man, but for the inner man and our "inner parts" we need a quality of cleansing we are incapable of. What we can do is strive to get out of our own way so as to let help in.

That seems a bit tied up in semantics. Whether we see it as our own capability, but a part of ourself we have not used, or we see it as something exterior to ourself seems irrelevant to me. Buddhists generally think it is our own capability. Christians tend to think this salvation comes from God, outside of ourselves. The end results are the same if the person is sincere. The process, the transformation is the key.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Path

I agree that the modern connotation of "idiot" is derogatory which is why that paraphrase I mentioned is both humorous and meaningful as is a lot of esoteric thought.

The "Fool" in the Tarot from the esoteric perspective as opposed to divination is similar in concept and if you compare the positive and negative qualities represented by the fool, it is clear that minds have become closed to the concept

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/smorgasbord-religion-being-of-a-11104-12.html

From the perspective of the upright perspective of the fool, it refers to idiocy as giving up attachment to fantasy, and becoming open to a new beginning. So the fool is in-between two worlds. But these words have such a powerful connotation that it is hard to contemplate these words from two opposing perspectives.

I do not buy into the idea that we can be free from emotional judgment, but I do think we can examine our emotions and choose beneficial ones. Other than that, I am not sure about the difference between judging and knowing. If I see that something I think or do is unbeneficial for myself, it doesn't mean I get all emotionally negative about it. But I call a spade a spade. Knowing one lies doesn't make the lying stop. We have to choose to quit lying.

This is really a whole thread. But I'd just like to say that this emotional freedom is the goal of apatheia in Stoicism and Christianity. A person has to practice attempts at emotional freedom to see if it is possible for them. This freedom can only come through attempts at conscious attention. Negative emotions take the place of consciousness. When we have conscious presence, we are incapable of negative emotions and can become open to positive emotions including higher sacred emotions.

I'm not sure what you're saying. We aren't just creatures of reaction, but also of creation. We can choose creative action and planning rather than just reacting to whatever comes our way, so it seems like this is an integral part of the human experience. That we can judge is part of our human condition and warrants examining

.

What does it require to create something? Does a bird create a nest or is it just a natural reaction to external conditioning? Do we normally create anything or are we just mechanically responding to external results as conditioned to do?

What IYO does it require for us to maintain a creative action rather then return to our habitual reactions?

I also believe it invites the Divine to assist us, or more aptly, I think it awakens the Divine within us.

I agree. our quality of consciousness when awakened can connect with higher consciousness. Without this help I believe we couldn't have conscious future.

That seems a bit tied up in semantics. Whether we see it as our own capability, but a part of ourself we have not used, or we see it as something exterior to ourself seems irrelevant to me. Buddhists generally think it is our own capability. Christians tend to think this salvation comes from God, outside of ourselves. The end results are the same if the person is sincere. The process, the transformation is the key.

I agree that the process is the way but what is the process? I believe that we have a personality "outer Man" that lives our life at the expense of the inner man. The shell of the egg protects and nourishes the chick. That is its function. The chick isn't supposed to die to feed the egg shell.

But this is the human condition. Life tempts us to decorate the egg (personality) so much that it never nourishes and protects the chick inside. The process then for me is how to nourish our inner life through lessening the dominance of the personality so that we can nourish our essential selves.

What do you believe the process is?

 

[Snoopy]

There are always exceptions. But I would hazard a guess the Buddhism you have chosen is not that representative of that in the regions where it is endemic.

Where it is "endemic", I suspect that there cannot be any of the "competition" to which you alluded?

(and sorry but you're wrong; my choice is representative of a region where it is "endemic".)

s.

 

[Snoopy]

And I am pretty sure Snoopy is actually English, poor guy.

I'm not sure which is most offensive; this or the idea that I'm a damned Yankee.

But Saltmeister, Tao is right.

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

(and sorry but you're wrong; my choice is representative of a region where it is "endemic".)

s.

OMG!! You live in Shepards Bush?

Though looking at a map seems to me that Buddhism is under assault on many fronts, its heartland multiply punctured. Do you think it will grow or diminish?

 

[path_of_one]

Hi Path

I agree that the modern connotation of "idiot" is derogatory which is why that paraphrase I mentioned is both humorous and meaningful as is a lot of esoteric thought.

Yep. I didn't take offense. I was just answering your question.

This is really a whole thread. But I'd just like to say that this emotional freedom is the goal of apatheia in Stoicism and Christianity. A person has to practice attempts at emotional freedom to see if it is possible for them. This freedom can only come through attempts at conscious attention. Negative emotions take the place of consciousness. When we have conscious presence, we are incapable of negative emotions and can become open to positive emotions including higher sacred emotions.

I tend to find a lot of value in the methods described by Thich Nhat Hanh- that we first develop conscious awareness of our negative emotions, and without judgment, we simply approach them like we would a fussing child. Compassionately but firmly. Over time, as we develop our awareness of our emotions, the negative ones go away on their own. It isn't that we have to try to get rid of them- it's like turning on a light in darkness- the darkness disappears because it's just the way it works. If negative emotions replaced consciousness, then how could we develop consciousness of our negative emotions and be open to change? Further, it seems that most people exist on a roller coaster of positive and negative emotions. The positive ones can also be problematic if we don't recognize their impermanence or if they become simply another desire we have. Happiness is only true happiness when we can suffer and be joyful at the same time. Otherwise, it's just a fleeting feeling that we associate with shopping or eating good food or whatever and we chase after it, only to find it go further and further away from us. I think if we approach our emotions with awareness and compassion, but with an eye toward disciplined reflection, we find how our suffering can come from happiness and happiness can come from suffering. We see how these things are ever-changing in us, and related to our hormones and whatnot. And then we can begin to move past them, toward true peace and joy and love that are not fleeting emotions, but a type of mindfulness that we choose to embrace.

What does it require to create something? Does a bird create a nest or is it just a natural reaction to external conditioning? Do we normally create anything or are we just mechanically responding to external results as conditioned to do?

Both. Creating stuff is creating stuff; the difference is in how mindful we are of our creating. Creativity is part of God's manifestation through the universe, and so is our capacity to be mindful of our creativity. It's worth noting that a person can be consciously aware of their creativity and still not mindful of the spiritual consequence of their creativity. I would say film-makers who create violent films, for example, are consciously aware of their attempt to create. They aren't just instinctively doing these big works of art. But they are, perhaps, not mindful of the spiritual consequence of creating such art... of the suffering it causes.

What IYO does it require for us to maintain a creative action rather then return to our habitual reactions?

We may be talking of two different things. If you mean what separates creativity (art) from habit, it could simply be one's conscious awareness of the desire to create. If you mean what separates creative choice from habitual reaction, I would say it is mindfulness- it is self-reflection and a development of an awareness of spiritual consequence. For me, that gets into a fairly complicated question that involves intuitive awareness of the flows of energy- the sort of ripple effect of one's actions, thoughts, and feelings that is very difficult to grasp intellectually but (I believe) can be grasped intuitively.

I agree. our quality of consciousness when awakened can connect with higher consciousness. Without this help I believe we couldn't have conscious future.

As I believe all is inter-being with God, entwined in God, I do not think any being can exist without Being-ness. All of the qualities that are exhibited find their root in God's qualities, but they can be twisted and warped so that they are not beneficial manifestations of these qualities. For example, the human capacity for creative, self-aware intelligence allows for planning and great ingenuity. But it does not, by itself, yield beneficial manifestations of this quality. This same quality can yield atomic weapons or vaccines. It has to be combined with a capacity for compassionate awareness to have direction that is beneficial to beings.

I do not think anything exists outside of God. The "bad" stuff included. It is more an issue of misdirected quality than poor quality. We either move toward action/thought/feeling harmonious with love and compassion, or we move toward disharmony, but the characteristics are neutral. Self-centeredness, if properly regulated by compassion and a mindfulness of unity of all beings, sustains the physical body and is controlled by one's discipline. If not properly regulated, self-centeredness yields greed, selfishness, hate, fear, and so forth. On its own, it is neutral. It allows the survival of the physical organism. It is not bad or good, it just is. It is our mindfulness of unity that makes it harmonious with compassion and love. Or our lack of mindfulness that makes it disharmonious and disruptive, that causes suffering to others.

I agree that the process is the way but what is the process? I believe that we have a personality "outer Man" that lives our life at the expense of the inner man. The shell of the egg protects and nourishes the chick. That is its function. The chick isn't supposed to die to feed the egg shell.

That is interesting. I think there are many paths in the process, but all of them that are successful seem to move people towards compassion and mindfulness or awareness of how they are connected to all other beings. I don't think our physical organism lives at the expense of our spirit (I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not), but rather being incarnated means that we can choose to either forget that we are anything other than the vehicle, or we can choose to care for the vehicle and use it as a means for our true self to explore, grow, and interact with other beings.

I used to despair over being in a body. It did not feel natural to me as a child, and I have a lot of poetry over the years that describes my agony in this- that being in a body and in a society felt like being in prison, like chains. I longed to be free from the limitations and the constraints, the pain and suffering that came with incarnation. This was not just some sort of depression, but rather a genuine confusion that lasted from as far back as I can remember to my mid-twenties. Then I began to appreciate, after a lot of work on the matter and a lot of reflection, the value of being incarnated. If I am the wind, I cannot feel the wind...

There is a balance I believe we should have between honoring our incarnation, caring for this vehicle, which is precious, and honoring our true self, our spirit that is at one with God. I see my physical self (including my personality and intellect) as a wonderful gift I've been given to play with for a while, and this earth and society likewise. I can be honest about what sucks about it- for it comes with its pains. But it also comes with its joys. Increasingly, I think the point is to find the joy and peace in limitation, and in so doing, release much of the limitation. It is to consciously transform myself, humanity, and the earth toward an awareness of union of physicality and spirituality. I have been rambling. But hopefully that gives you some idea of where I'm currently at in thinking about this...

Life tempts us to decorate the egg (personality) so much that it never nourishes and protects the chick inside. The process then for me is how to nourish our inner life through lessening the dominance of the personality so that we can nourish our essential selves.

Yep- we have to watch for the tendency to reify our impermanent, temporary selves. And in our modern Western society, I think it is very, very easy to do and very culturally appropriate to focus on this version of "self."

Yet it is not expedient to ignore our personality, learning style, etc. because they will affect how we can best approach our spiritual self. A person who is an introvert will approach the spiritual life differently than an extrovert. A person who is naturally attuned to nature and learns through experience will approach the spiritual life differently than a person who learns mostly through reading. That's OK. It's just when we mistakenly think our temporary bodies and brains are really us that we run into some glitches, IMO.

I can't entirely speak to the process for another person. For me, I almost feel like I went backwards through it, starting out with great confusion about the value of my body and brain and wishing to be rid of them, then trying desperately to embrace them and be like everyone else for a while (but aware of this process, treating it as an experiment), then going back to great confusion and a lot of depression about it, then developing a sense of purpose in incarnation that I am not sure is universal, but allows a balance for me. Most people seem to start off with a more natural acceptance of their external self/society and struggle to accept its impermanence, which is why death and so forth really bothers most people. I started off with confusion and despair over having an external self/society and struggled to accept its realness.

So the process depends on the person- where they are at and what cognitive constraints they face. It's different for everyone and there is no one answer, so long as the method leads to mindful compassion... but we need to watch out that our temporary self does not reify the method so much that we get to that other shore and fail to get out of the boat. You know the saying: "I looked so longingly at the door that was shut to me, I failed to see the open window."

 

[Saltmeister]

I'm not sure which is most offensive; this or the idea that I'm a damned Yankee.

But Saltmeister, Tao is right.

s.

Sorry, I must have a bad memory!

I vaguely recall, a while back, a rather "friendly" argument between what I perceived as a Briton and an American about guns and gun laws. I may have mistaken you for wil. (Then again, maybe not. Maybe you're an expatriate . . .)

(I can't remember exactly why I said that. Maybe I was trying to say he wasn't Australian and that you had gotten his nationality wrong.)

Yankee lol. So what does the name "Yankee" mean to Americans (or otherwise)?

I remember a song I heard sung by a fellow student as a kid: "Yankee Doodle went to town, riding on a pony . . . " (not sure what it all meant)

Believe it or not, in some places, the word "doodle" actually refers to a man's ............ (if you know what I mean)

 

[path_of_one]

Yankee lol. So what does the name "Yankee" mean to Americans (or otherwise)?

I don't know about in other regions, but on the West coast it generally refers to a northeasterner (abbreviated "Yank") or the baseball team. Though more broadly, I know international folks use it to mean "American."

I remember a song I heard sung by a fellow student as a kid: "Yankee Doodle went to town, riding on a pony . . . " (not sure what it all meant)

Believe it or not, in some places, the word "doodle" actually refers to a man's ............ (if you know what I mean)

In my school, we sang that song sometimes before the pledge of allegiance, and I never did figure out what it meant. LOL As for doodle...

 

[wil]

Yankee lol. So what does the name "Yankee" mean to Americans (or otherwise)?

I remember a song I heard sung by a fellow student as a kid: "Yankee Doodle went to town, riding on a pony . . . " (not sure what it all meant)

Believe it or not, in some places, the word "doodle" actually refers to a man's ............ (if you know what I mean)

Yankee refers to New Englanders... or Americans or the North depending on when and from where one is speaking.

The Brits referred to the colonists as Yanks before independence.

Yankee Doodle Dandy was a durogatory British song refering to us being full of ourselves, uncivilized, unorganized soldiers...put a feather in his cap and called it macaroni...the stars, bars, emblazenments on uniforms and caps which indicated rank were called 'macaroni' so they were saying a. we had no order or system and b. he elevated himself.

doodle...odds are it just fit the tune...

during the war between the states the south referred to the north as Yankees and if you travel between Virginia and Georgia they still do.

I remember dancing with a gal who said "Why your from Maryland? Why you don't sound like no Yankee!"

 

[Saltmeister]

Yankee refers to New Englanders... or Americans or the North depending on when and from where one is speaking.

The Brits referred to the colonists as Yanks before independence.

Yankee Doodle Dandy was a durogatory British song refering to us being full of ourselves, uncivilized, unorganized soldiers...put a feather in his cap and called it macaroni...the stars, bars, emblazenments on uniforms and caps which indicated rank were called 'macaroni' so they were saying a. we had no order or system and b. he elevated himself.

doodle...odds are it just fit the tune...

during the war between the states the south referred to the north as Yankees and if you travel between Virginia and Georgia they still do.

I remember dancing with a gal who said "Why your from Maryland? Why you don't sound like no Yankee!"

I looked it up on Wikipedia.

Yankee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A humorous aphorism attributed to E.B. White summarizes these distinctions:

To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

Another variant of the aphorism replaces the last line with: "To a Vermonter, a Yankee is somebody who still uses an outhouse." There are several other folk and humorous etymologies for the term.

But lol, if it was derogatory, why didn't the Northerners sing this song about the Southerners just to get back at them?

 

[wil]

I looked it up on Wikipedia.

Yankee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But lol, if it was derogatory, why didn't the Northerners sing this song about the Southerners just to get back at them?

They did, what was a derogatory brit song became a song we are proud of today and sing in schools...

Today when one figures out how to make something work with baling wire and duct tape we call that Yankee Ingenuity...and prior to the cordless drill our favorite screwdriver which you pushed to turn was called a yankee...

 

[Saltmeister]

They did, what was a derogatory brit song became a song we are proud of today and sing in schools...

Today when one figures out how to make something work with baling wire and duct tape we call that Yankee Ingenuity...and prior to the cordless drill our favorite screwdriver which you pushed to turn was called a yankee...

A naughty thought just buzzed into my head . . . Yankee religion!

Whether that's positive or negative, I don't know.

 

[Saltmeister]

How about a Yankee thread?