Harmony

[wil]

@ v,

If you do not believe that education and exposure allows one to see things differently than ignorance... I can't answer your question.

I did notice that you chose to not respond to my simple scenario.

For harmony to exist, disharmony must exist.

Why?

For me to exist, must I also not exist?

For life to exist must it also not exist?

Can nothing exist on its own merit?

 

[seattlegal]

interesting. thanks for sharing your view.

on a personal note, i don't find such sliding scales to be tremendously useful as i am firmly in the disbeliever camp yet feel that i'm making progress on developing Bodhichitta...of course such things are relative

Like I said, your mileage may vary.

 

[Snoopy]

indeed, this is so. conceptual elaboration is fairly bivalent as it's grounded in a subject/object dichotomy that is rarely acknowledged at any sort of conscious level.

I'm glad you see it my way! (sorry)

 

[seattlegal]

For harmony to exist, disharmony must exist.

indeed, this is so. conceptual elaboration is fairly bivalent as it's grounded in a subject/object dichotomy that is rarely acknowledged at any sort of conscious level.

Yay! Paintball guns are in my profile in the emoticons album! Help yourself!

​

{I'll see about building a fruitcake catapult for DrummR}

 

[Snoopy]

Why?

For me to exist, must I also not exist?

For life to exist must it also not exist?

Can nothing exist on its own merit?

I don't think I can improve on Vaj's comment above. I'm not sure how your other questions relate to inter-being harmony?

 

[wil]

So the ying yang paintball is harmonious disharmony....

Maybe that is what V is leading to that I can't grock.

Me, I'll just be in bliss, the restuvya have at it.

 

[luecy7]

Is it good to have all of the birds singing together in harmony? Nature is not in harmony, so should people be in harmony?

Having faith is not a matter of which religion. Being honest is not a matter of which religion. Being loving is not a matter of which religion.

 

[wil]

Again, I am not saying we should all be singing the same tune, believe the same beliefs, just that we should be tolerant of others beliefs and not inflict ours on each other.

Tis apparent why we have issues finding harmony though...


If there is light in the soul,
There will be beauty in the person.

If there is beauty in the person,
There will be harmony in the house.

If there is harmony in the house,
There will be order in the nation.

If there is order in the nation,
There will be peace in the world.

~~~~~~~~~ Chinese Proverb

 

[Vajradhara]

@ v,

If you do not believe that education and exposure allows one to see things differently than ignorance... I can't answer your question.

i think that you can't answer my question because you can't justify your axioms. my question has nothing to do with beliefs or, for that matter, this re-framed/rephrased question here which you are posing.

you didn't initially make the claim that exposure and education would allow one to see things differently, you're moving the goal posts here. you made the initial claim that exposure to new ideas equated to tolerance/respect of those ideas, an idea you called "harmony". i've asked you repeatedly to explain to me how education and exposure to new ideas equates to tolerance/respect for those ideas.

rather than answering my question you are, at this point in our conversation, suggesting that the reason i don't understand what you are saying is because i don't have belief...in education? i'm sure i believe in education, Wil. i'm also quite sure that being educated about $cientology does not make one respect their beliefs.

on a personal note, i have copies of all of those books on my bookshelves. are you suggesting that my reading of them as produced a level of respect and tolerance for the ideas which they espouse? it very much seems that way.

I did notice that you chose to not respond to my simple scenario.

perhaps you missed it in the original reply. i'll repost it here for your convenience:

"as for your scenario. i have no way of knowing which of those groups of people is more or less tolerant of differing ideas though, apparently, you do and that is after all what i'm asking you to explain to me. "

however, the fact that you've changed questions in what you are asking me would lead me to answer differently. clearly, the group that is educated and exposed to more ideas is educated and exposed to more ideas than the group which is uneducated and not exposed to as many ideas.

shifting goal posts aside, that doesn't answer the question which i asked you namely, how is it that being educated regarding the views of another religion, for instance, or philosophical school et al. leads to respect for the views advocated by those groups/institutions/religions/philosophies et al?

of course the implication there is that if one doesn't agree that being educated regarding other points of view then one actually isn't educated about it and conversely that people that are uneducated about other religious traditions are unable to generate respect or tolerance for other religious traditions, for instance. if that is your view it would be helpful to simply say it as such.

i feel fairly well educated about most of the world religious traditions and whilst anyone can believe whatever they want i don't have tolerance or respect for a great many of the views advocated by those religious traditions. i feel that i've demonstrated a fair degree of understanding of the basic tenets of religions which i've discussed, i've spent years studying them or participating in them and my experience, Wil, is that education doesn't lead to tolerance and acceptance. abhorrent ideas are abhorrent regardless of how educated one is about them or their provenance.

 

[Vajradhara]

Like I said, your mileage may vary.

 

[Vajradhara]

I'm glad you see it my way! (sorry)

metaphysical humor! i'm laughing on the inside, where it counts!

 

[wil]

Whatever, V, I've moved no goal posts, yes you've still chosen to not answer the scneario that would allow you to see my meaning, as it doesn't fit your paradigm no worries.

Yes there may be folks like you who read various books and then have all the more reason to not appreciate others beliefs, I appreciate that. You've proven you can please some of the people some of the time but not all the people all the time.

No worries.

 

[Vajradhara]

i did answer Wil. for the third time, my answer is "i don't know".

you, yourself Wil, don't appreciate the Wahhabi sect of Islam. have you read books on it Wil? do you think that reading a book on it would somehow make you come to respect the views advocated therein? why or why not?

i've asked that question to you over and over and over, in each of my replies to you and you've not offered a response.

i have no idea what you are talking about pleasing people nor how that would apply to asking you to justify your unsupported axiom which you, yourself, admit is unsupported. you can't support your axiom or you would have easily and simply done so already given that such things are typically part and parcel of a claims such as yours.

...and i wonder if you've managed to conflate beings with their ideas and ascribe such notions to me?

 

[wil]

Yes, I've narrowed my issue down to Pure Islam, and Literal Fundie Christians, I am intolerant of intolerant people, tis my cross to bear.

But tis also my view, I have not delved into their beliefs deep enough to understand how they believe what they believe.

But if they can agree to quit harming others, to live in harmony with folks that don't believe as they, I can do the same with them....

And is that not what my axiom indicates? That harmony can begin....

 

[wil]

The Dali Lama said, "You know you are enlightened when everyone you see, you see as enlightened."

on a personal note, i .... feel that i'm making progress on developing Bodhichitta...of course such things are relative

Bodhichitta -- "awakened heart-mind" -- is the compassionate wish to realize enlightenment for all beings, not just oneself. Through bodhichitta, the desire to attain enlightenment transcends the narrow interests of the individual self.

Could be this discussion is just what you need?

 

[Vajradhara]

fair enough Wil.

 

[stuntpickle]

I am not indicating we need to remove ourselves from our faith....just the attitude that everyone needs to join us as they are wrong and we are right...and accept that they are right for THEM and we are right for US.

Let me explain by way of example. I, as something of a Christian, have had both Muslim and Jewish friends during my lifetime. My relationship with these people was more than conciliatory or civil, but, by definition, friendly. Our interactions were almost never concerned with religious differences because we were, in general, not particularly concerned with religion. We were not persons who primarily identified ourselves as Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. We were secular persons in a secular world that was, primarily, concerned with the production of efficient citizens rather than truth or morality. The practical Nirvana you describe is alive and well in the modern, secular state. But I think it's important to understand that it is only possible insofar as persons are willing to depart from religion. Secular society necessarily involves primary identification by vocation rather than belief.

Of course, as I began to become more religious, my relationships with the aforementioned Jews and Muslims became strained, not because they were Jews and Muslims, but precisely because they were irreligious. By this I do not mean to say they were unholy or evil, but entirely fatuous. The sum of their personalities began to seem a patchwork of pop culture and tabloid sensationalism. The problem wasn't that our conversations devolved into bitter antagonism, but that conversation, itself, seemed structurally prohibited. If ever a conversation concerning, say, love is to be possible, I think the participants must necessarily have a conception of love that exceeds the one presented in Pretty Woman. Consider for a moment that even the 9-11 hijackers, thought to be the ideal incarnations of religious extremism, were, according to their credit card statements, just before their deaths, eating Oreos and attending strip clubs.

Is religion even a factor?

 

[luecy7]

Again, I am not saying we should all be singing the same tune, believe the same beliefs, just that we should be tolerant of others beliefs and not inflict ours on each other.

I submit that it is more the way that we inflict. We had parents and siblings that inflicted on us in a way, and we inflicted upon our parents and siblings, so one way or another we inflict others and we may get inflicted upon. I think the issue is mostly about the method.

Tis apparent why we have issues finding harmony though...

If there is light in the soul,
There will be beauty in the person.

If there is beauty in the person,
There will be harmony in the house.

If there is harmony in the house,
There will be order in the nation.

If there is order in the nation,
There will be peace in the world.

~~~~~~~~~ Chinese Proverb

Looks can be deceiving though. To borrow from another religion: Sheepish on the outside, wolfish on the inside. Harmless as a dove, but smart as a serpent.

 

[Dream]

Is religion even a factor?

Yes it is. They were Muslims, so its a factor. Keep in mind there were many factors.

i don't think that's what the OP is about at all. rather it seems that you make the unsupported assertion that if we merely read these other views that tolerance and respect for those views arise as a natural byproduct. that has not been my experience nor has it been the experience of most people that i've talked to. i've read many books and spoken to people that hold radically different paradigms than myself and whilst i can generate respect for sentient beings that does not equate to respect for their ideas.

What about the humility that comes from seeing another person with strong faith so different from yourself? That might have an impact. For interfaith purposes the question is how to maximize that impact.

I take it for granted that you understand that Judaism is IN THE MAIN largely concerned with the explication and observance of law with additional exegesis of that law in the form of the Talmud. What I'm about to say is in no way intended to be pejorative: Judaism is, in some fundamental way, legalistic.

We see other religions only 2 dimensionally at first. In the recent past this was popularly what was thought, but this is not a good picture of Judaism. It does have laws but in the main, Judaism is not legalistic. It is more like an accumulation of wisdom along with vigorous spiritual exercises such as meditations and festivals, and some odd cultural practices and funny hats.

Now, consider for a moment that Christianity is largely informed by Saul of Tarsus, whose major contribution was the radical revision of that very same law into one short maxim. Can these two faiths be easily reconciled? What sort of revision would be required to accomplish that reconciliation? Would either group accept that revision? Would the revision even be recognizable to either group?

It is subjective whether Paul founded Christianity. When studying Christianity people use him as a scaffold for lack of another one, and I contend he did not do what you are saying. Instead I think Christianity grew from the same sources as modern Judaism and branched out. You can use Paul to explain it if you like. The first step at reconciliation is to not try to combine the two back together. Accept responsibility for pride causing the division and carry on hopefully with a little less of it.

I think the entire part about the absence of the man was merely to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the pharisees, who were not interested in meting out justice but in laying a trap for Jesus, which clearly demonstrates why humanity cannot be trusted to be its own judge--it was using the law to suit its own ends rather than God's.

The stories about 'Pharisees' are a good example of hyperbole. It seems to me that those telling the stories used themselves in a denigrating fashion as a way of paying for the nation's disgrace and to try to make some profit from the disaster of the L-RD's rejection. Their country was disgraced. The reputation of the L-RD is more important to a Pharisee than his own reputation. You should not be surprised by the traditional self criticism of Jews who would cut off their own arm before they'd disgrace the name. Even in modern times they can go into these huge diatribes against themselves, like the modern Karaites (spelling) for instance. That is I think why the New Testament image of Pharisees does not match the historical one.

And I don't think the implication was that humanity should try harder to serve God in administering justice but that humanity was, on the whole, fundamentally incapable of doing so. If Jesus had been interested merely in the double-standard, he wouldn't have immediately followed with "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" but something along the lines of "so where's this guy?"

The turn of 'Law' in this case is that they were supposed to judge fairly, but for some reason they couldn't so their judgments could not be valid. Whatever he said to them must have overturned a lot of previous judgments against adulteresses. At the same time, historically we know that very few people were ever really killed for adultery and that Pharisees were generally opposed to killing. The story is another example of hyperbole and self affliction in an effort to separate the evil of Israel from the name of the L-RD. The two are two separate things, but a new gentile convert might get them confused. Better to make the distinction sharp and accept repudiation.

 

[Vajradhara]

What about the humility that comes from seeing another person with strong faith so different from yourself? That might have an impact. For interfaith purposes the question is how to maximize that impact.

i don't feel humbled by such things, on the contrary, i often feel inspired if the tradition is a valid spiritual refuge. conversely, i see many devout $cientologists and feel more than ever the corrosive effect of religion upon society.

i am, apparently, incapable of expressing my question regarding the OP in a manner which can be understood and responded to and thus i find my continued attempts to be exceedingly frustrating.