Harmony

Originally posted by divegeester
I did my best given the restraint provided by your rambling.

I do not begin to get your cruel behavior.

Originally posted by divegeester
I did my best given the restraint provided by your rambling.

who is rambling is the question?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Good evening.

I think you are describing an important aspect of life. Harmony is about the relation of parts to a whole, be they voices to make a chord or a balance of virtues that facilitate Eudaimonia.

I know we fundamentally disagree about aspects of how the world is, yet from my perspective, I still think dialogue is possible. In my view, this f ...[text shortened]... rational engagement with the cut-and-paste off-the-peg-worldview merchants. What do you think?

Open and tolerant discussions in this forum would help anyone holding any stance. If we hold our biases too strongly and just ignore what others have to present, we might miss something that can actually improve our own spirituality. The golden rule is quite common (do onto others...) across a lot of religions and schools, but the way they are presented (parables/stories/cultural context) can bring in new insight and application.

Similarly, it makes you just a more versed and worldly person. Understanding where people are coming from, understanding why they believe and how makes our interactions much more pleasant and potentially beneficial. If our objective was directed in a social manner instead of a call for conversion (or downright slander), I could certainly indulge and dive into some rich perspectives.

Feel like I just posted this...

Originally posted by ua41
Open and tolerant discussions in this forum would help anyone holding any stance. If we hold our biases too strongly and just ignore what others have to present, we might miss something that can actually improve our own spirituality. The golden rule is quite common (do onto others...) across a lot of religions and schools, but the way they are presented (parabl ...[text shortened]... could certainly indulge and dive into some rich perspectives.

Feel like I just posted this...

Very well said!

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Good evening.

I think you are describing an important aspect of life. Harmony is about the relation of parts to a whole, be they voices to make a chord or a balance of virtues that facilitate Eudaimonia.

I know we fundamentally disagree about aspects of how the world is, yet from my perspective, I still think dialogue is possible. In my view, this f ...[text shortened]... rational engagement with the cut-and-paste off-the-peg-worldview merchants. What do you think?

Well I dislike them (cut 'n' pastes). Even if you really identify with something you should really keep it to links to support an arguement.

I'm the same as you in some ways. I really respect your choices of posts to respond to.
Yes we have different takes, and yes we can still find a meaningful dialogue. However one has to take anothers post in the context of his/her previous posting.

In my op i was trying to invoke the harmony of the interaction between people on a daily basis. You have brought forth another aspect(s) of harmony.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Bogus is a harmless word meaning not authentic...its not a rude word.

The Vedanta teaches God is the Supreme Transcendental Spiritual person, and Buddhism teaches that there is no God, so which are you attracted to and why?....you dont have to tell me, but you should look at that question for your own benefit at some time.

Namaste

Namaste🙂

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Fabian there is not one post I have put up, that you have not answered....you are definately my biggest fan!

And I am happy that you read them and learn from me! 🙂

You seem a bit less insultive to day than before. Well done, my little cricket, well done. But you have a far way further to go to be a social adult person. Perhaps you've just taken your pills, as I told you, perhaps your psyciatrist is backing me up so yo understand your anti-social behaviour, I don't know. But what I do know is that you are on the right path. Some day you will even be able to make new friends. Let's hope so. Because here, at the Spiritual Forum of RHP, you hve made a lot of enemies.

Whenever you use words that can be taken as insults - rewrite.
Whenever someone feel insulted - analyze what error you've made.
Whenever someone is kind to you, despite your former negative behaviour - ask yourself why this particular person got to like you.

But don't stop now, my little cricket, you have a long way to go to be socially accepted, there is a lot of work for you and your psyciatrist to make you a pleasant human being.

Good luck! 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well I dislike them (cut 'n' pastes). Even if you really identify with something you should really keep it to links to support an arguement.

I'm the same as you in some ways. I really respect your choices of posts to respond to.
Yes we have different takes, and yes we can still find a meaningful dialogue. However one has to take anothers post in t ...[text shortened]... raction between people on a daily basis. You have brought forth another aspect(s) of harmony.

But, if one were to express something of not his own, however it is addressing the issue, is it not a virtue, than one's ego as what should be?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And I am happy that you read them and learn from me! 🙂

You seem a bit less insultive to day than before. Well done, my little cricket, well done. But you have a far way further to go to be a social adult person. Perhaps you've just taken your pills, as I told you, perhaps your psyciatrist is backing me up so yo understand your anti-social behaviour, I t of work for you and your psyciatrist to make you a pleasant human being.

Good luck! 🙂

Perhaps you could choose to learn etiquette as an adult would do so.

"little cricket"?

"take your pills"?

"you have a far way further to go to be a social adult person"?

This is good advice;

Whenever you use words that can be taken as insults - rewrite.
Whenever someone feel insulted - analyze what error you've made.
Whenever someone is kind to you, despite your former negative behaviour - ask yourself why this particular person got to like you.

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
Perhaps you could choose to learn etiquette as an adult would do so.

"little cricket"?

"take your pills"?

"you have a far way further to go to be a social adult person"?

This is good advice;

Whenever you use words that can be taken as insults - rewrite.
Whenever someone feel insulted - analyze what error you've made.
Whenever someone ...[text shortened]... your former negative behaviour - ask yourself why this particular person got to like you.

Yes, I use insults towards Vishu. And this teaches him that insults is not a good idea to use with deabitng people. And he seems to learn about it, because now he seems to understand that insults can hurt. He feels hurt, and that's the point. He learns.

Earlier he was of the thought that insults are not insults if they are true. What I write about Vishnu is true. He has some kind of psycic diagnosis, even if he doesn't know it himself, nor having a psyciatrist who has told him. His anti-social behaviour shows this, so the insults I give him are not (according to his own definition about insults) really instults, but facts.

By using his faulty definition against him, he grows to learn things about how his insults are taken.

So whatever I do against him, is just a mirror of whta he does to other people. Nothing more. And it is for a reason. The reason is to socialiraze him so he can be accepted as a fellow debater, and not a big-mouth who believes that the number of instults delivered is the base of who wins a discussion, and who have the most correct opinion about things.

I think I see a positive response by him. He will, with time, be agreeable.

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
But, if one were to express something of not his own, however it is addressing the issue, is it not a virtue, than one's ego as what should be?

Once one has learnt that lesson it ceases to be a problem for one🙂

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Hullo fellow traveller...Voluble fine with me

Vedanta explains that God (first cause) has multifarious energies and with these energies the different worlds are manifested.

This paticular world of earth, fire, air, ether,mind intelligence and false ego is the playground for some living entities to lord it over others, and when they have become tired ...[text shortened]... e devotee returns to their real eternal home where their is unlimited spiritual rasa (activity).

You are quite definite in your disagreement with the Advaita Vedanta path it appears.

You don't actually mention Advaita, the non-dual take of the honorable path (amongst others) of Vedanta. It appears you do not align yourself with that specific path of Vedanta. Your answer helps me to clarify where you are coming from. Thank you.

Vedanta, the "unarguable truth" you continue to volubly and somewhat pugnaciously state, (with associated punching back) unfortunately, is as effected by differences of how things "are" as nearly every other path around, as respectable an understanding as it may be.

Definiteness of how things "are" is a mark of your posts, Vish, but not only yours. I guess it is admirable if wanting to be a staunch "defender". I slip into sounding pretty definite myself sometimes.

But for me, the problem I have found is that the more definite I am in proclaiming what ever "truth" I appear to see tends strongly to enhance my own sense of "self" (ego), which then causes to emerge much defining, categorising and treating others as opponents and "wrong". In the past this allayed whatever existential anxieties I felt, but unfortunately did not make me feel any different from a somewhat religious high pressure car salesman.

At the heart of any form of Vedanta, and found in other forms in paths, the concept that we are all a part of a "oneness" as an aspect of "Atman" ( in your tradition's terms), means any separating attitude or belief cannot be ultimately correct.

The "other" is an aspect of you and you are an aspect of the "other". This is the diamond core of "true" Vedanta, and "true" mystical Christianity, "true" mystical Islam,(Sufism) and "true" Taoism, "true" mystical Judaism and "true" Buddhism, but put in different cultural terms.

To me it is also the source and very meaning of HARMONY, the lack of which is causing our forum at times to be a somewhat flickering light of dubious aid to anyone's spirit.

Not always of course. But I do think *sigh* we all could try better. We can vigorously argue without abuse of each other surely. we can state our position as clearly and forcefully as we can, for from encounter we can both learn. And if someone abuses you, I see it as a sign of spiritual maturity and more effective to simply not respond in kind, but seek to demonstrate that which you would like to arise in the other.

Let's practice a bit of mature harmony eh?

Here endeth the sermon...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Once one has learnt that lesson it ceases to be a problem for one🙂

agreed and well said =]

Originally posted by Taoman
You are quite definite in your disagreement with the Advaita Vedanta path it appears.

You don't actually mention Advaita, the non-dual take of the honorable path (amongst others) of Vedanta. It appears you do not align yourself with that specific path of Vedanta. Your answer helps me to clarify where you are coming from. Thank you.

Vedanta, the "unargua ...[text shortened]... a bit of mature harmony eh?

Here endeth the sermon...

Since you spoke so nicely and have appealed to my softer side, I will from this day onwards refrain from describing peoples behaviour.

Advaita Vedanta is not actually the original Vedanta, and it is clear from Buddhist scriptures that Vedanta was synonymous with Vaisnava Vedanta or Vyasadeas Vedanta.

Anyway to get to the point Advaita Vedanta is not attractive to me because it does not present the highest truth, and the highest truth is that God is a Transcendental Supreme Person with all opulences namely ' all wealth, all fame, all strength, all renunciation, all beauty, all knowledge and all power.

The conditioned living entities are covered by maya and when they re-kindle their dormant love for the Lord, they may end the cycle of birth and death in this world of suffering.

Advaita Vedanta presents the (impersonal) teaching that all living beings are one with Brahman and that Brahman is Supreme, but Brahman is but the Brahmajoyti and the successful Advaitaist upon realizing that his very self is that Brahman, merges with it and annilates their identity.

I dont belief that true spiritual life is about annihilating the Self.

In Vaisnavism the individual spiritual being is never annihilated and after the death of the body, they return to the Lord in the Spiritual World to engage in loving past-times with the Lord in their spiritual blissfull body.

So I could never accept the atheistic teachings of Advaita Vedanta claiming that the Supreme Person is non existent.

Namaste

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Since you spoke so nicely and have appealed to my softer side, I will from this day onwards refrain from describing peoples behaviour.

Advaita Vedanta is not actually the original Vedanta, and it is clear from Buddhist scriptures that Vedanta was synonymous with Vaisnava Vedanta or Vyasadeas Vedanta.

Anyway to get to the point Advaita Vedanta is not ...[text shortened]... istic teachings of Advaita Vedanta claiming that the Supreme Person is non existent.

Namaste

Thank you Vishva.

The discussion about the nature of the Supreme "Self" is as you know is an age old one. I am not up with all of the specific understandings of the more ancient Vedantic path you hold to, so you have informed me more. Advaita is a later understanding, one that I obviously align with more.


I don't think of "annihilation" so much as merging, much like it is with individual passing waves and ocean. What is the wave and what is the ocean? They are both each other. I think one may validly and fruitfully relate to the All Good as a "SELF" or "God", but I feel it is not possible to fully define in human language That One.

Namaste.