The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

[Bob Michael]

"Fearlessness, purity of heart, perseverance in acquiring wisdom and in practicing yoga, charity, subjugation of the senses, performance of holy rites, study of the scriptures, self-discipline, straightforwardness, compassion for all creatures, absence of greed, gentleness, modesty, lack of restlessness, radiance of character, forgiveness, patience, cleanness, freedom from hate, absence of conceit - these qualities are the wealth of a divinely inclined person." (God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita XVI: 1-3)

[Anders Schlander]

what is "performance of holy rites" meant to help? although somebody with a lot of wisdom may tend to have many of these qualities, It's a problem that people usually only see these qualities, and not the cause of them, so they will think to themselves, I can do many of these things, but they do it in a selfish way.

Performing holy rites seems to be to be the selfish way of trying to, hopelessly, attain the qualities of the enlightened because they have no idea of what enlightenment is about. It happens in hinduism, christianity, and buddhism, where the few very wise texts of people who were enlightened, if you assume they are real, like Jesus, etc. have been completely misunderstood and caused people to do countless of these "holy" rites.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"Performance of holyrites ", in Sanskrit this reads as yajñāḥ which means sacrifice, also in a general sense. According to another verse yajñāḥ is what is "born of karma".

The larger perspective here is seeing how one needs to give up as a result of having gained. Certain traditions were designed to help one burn up. Perhaps one could say this is what one is doing already all the time: sacrificing oneself, emptying oneself partially into things, slowly going under while holding on. A divinely inclined person sacrifices completely instead and doesn't grasp anything at all.

[Anders Schlander]

Ah, interesting. There's two ways, there's the one where you sacrifice your attachments with a love of truth, although motivated by the ego, your sacrifices lead you to undermine the ego and destroy it. However, then there would be the other way where one is attached to sacrifice rather than truth, in which case, you will sacrifice things, i.e. lose things, in order for the ego to gain in another sense.

[cousinbasil]

Performing holy rites seems to be to be the selfish way of trying to, hopelessly, attain the qualities of the enlightened because they have no idea of what enlightenment is about. It happens in hinduism, christianity, and buddhism, where the few very wise texts of people who were enlightened, if you assume they are real, like Jesus, etc. have been completely misunderstood and caused people to do countless of these "holy" rites.

There's two ways, there's the one where you sacrifice your attachments with a love of truth, although motivated by the ego, your sacrifices lead you to undermine the ego and destroy it. However, then there would be the other way where one is attached to sacrifice rather than truth, in which case, you will sacrifice things, i.e. lose things, in order for the ego to gain in another sense.

It seems to me that the rites you mentioned in the first quote often have little to do with sacrifice of any kind, which makes them curious artifacts.

Holy rites involving sacrifice were historically performed to propitiate the unseen powers for whom they were intended, not to gain enlightenment in a spiritual sense, but to gain or maintain physical boons, such as good weather, large crops, victory in battle. The general sense is "Life is hard, but I will perform this ritual to make it a bit harder temporarily so that you might see fit to make it go easier for us this year..."

It is worthwhile to note that many sacrifices had an element of misdirection to them. It is much like Moe Howard saying "I will defend you to the last drop of -" and pointing at brother Shemp - "his blood."

There is not much self-flagellation going on in organized Christianity these days, for example. Priests in their expensive raiment, performing a mock-up of the Last Supper in front of people wearing their Sunday best. They don't even sacrifice too much money for the ingredients - tiny tasteless wafers instead of bread, and the cheapest, most vinegarish wine of which they force themselves to take only a tiny symbolic sip. These same priests then retire to their rectories in suburbia and indulge in Glen Livet and homosexual relations. Meanwhile, the flock disperses in BMWs and Audis, having sacrificed one hour of their weeks.

There is no discernible sacrifice to many modern religious rites. Perhaps this is understandable. Since the original rites from which they descended often entailed at least some sacrifice (you could no longer milk the goat you killed) but logically produced no material gain, it is as if the rites themselves gradually evolved to reflect their lack of production. ("We'll use a smaller goat this time - the gods don't seem to notice.")

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Post to defeat the spam filter]

[Alexis Jacobi]

AS wrote: What is "performance of holy rites" meant to help?

So interesting how our language so automatically expresses our presuppositions. There should need to be no holy rites because, after all, what would one offer to? The very idea is not even considerable. But from this early Hindu perspective, all that has come into existence has arisen from a source. The notion of sacrifice runs through all aspects of the metaphysical system, the way they orient themselves on the earth.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To be clear: Alexis Jacobi is Alex Jacob, Alex T. Jacob and [genuflections] The Talking Ass.

Though I understand quite well what you wrote, Cousin Basil, one could also argue that today's Christians (well, it would depend on which group one is speaking of) are making some very real sacrifices. I have spent a couple of fruitful (and even fruit-filled) years looking into Christianity and my Heavens what an interesting, strange, beautiful and terrifying religion it is! Basically, I would say that there is not a way to get through it without a guide---but who could function as that guide?

Still, I listen(ed) to a good deal of Christian Evangelical radio and truthfully was often quite impressed by the sincere intent and clear expression of the desire to live truthfully and religiously. It is not at all empty, hypocritical expression, though Christianity (and all religions, or all people?) can be accused of hypocricy.

But your reference to the Last Supper, in this context of 'yajna', is very interesting. I am inclined to believe (perceive) that we as Westerners are all essentially Christian no matter if we don the hats of Buddhists or Taoists or shamanistic psychedelicists. The substructure to which we are fused is essentially Christian. Not only in the way our minds work or how our zealotry is expressed, but in the fabric of our selves, in large portions that are invisible and unknown to us.

But these Evangelicals, it must be said, are making sacrifices indeed, but they might not (or they also might) be the sort we respect or admire or emulate.

Still, and this is also true in respect to the Hindu-Vedic idea of sacrifice, the Christian sacrifice can only make sense if one accepts the underlying meaning. There is effectively no means to accept the meaning or the 'truth' in the meaning anymore: unless one clings to what is an outmoded, moribund 'faith' that falters the minute it is expressed. Meaning, the means to expression of certain truths and meanings is obstructed.

If one offered Holy Sacrifices in days-gone-by one did so from the position of a whole self, in an intelligible, consistant world. But how could we link our modern concept of the world (scientific, materialistic) to such a notion of usefulness of sacrifice?

[Pam Seeback]

The only meaningful sacrifice is that of the idea of 'self.' Anything else is a substitute.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[To provide a sense of what I mean by submerged Christian zealotry, I would refer to MA's neat summation above. Some years back, it would have been phrased thus: The only meaningful sacrifice is to The Christ. Anything else is psuedo-sacrifice.]

[David Quinn]

But your reference to the Last Supper, in this context of 'yajna', is very interesting. I am inclined to believe (perceive) that we as Westerners are all essentially Christian no matter if we don the hats of Buddhists or Taoists or shamanistic psychedelicists. The substructure to which we are fused is essentially Christian. Not only in the way our minds work or how our zealotry is expressed, but in the fabric of our selves, in large portions that are invisible and unknown to us.

This is such a nonsensical point of view, one that ultimately undermines itself. After all, Christianity emerged out of the Jewish culture, and the Jewish culture itself emerged out of a still more previous culture, and so on and so forth, going back into the mists of ancient pagan and animalist times.

So it could equally be argued that we are all paganists and animalists, that Christianity is a superficial manifestation of this.

Not that any of this matters to the individual who has broken free of all cultures, of course.

-

[cousinbasil]

This is such a nonsensical point of view, one that ultimately undermines itself. After all, Christianity emerged out of the Jewish culture, and the Jewish culture itself emerged out of a still more previous culture, and so on and so forth, going back into the mists of ancient pagan and animalist times.

This might be a satifactory view if one were to cleave to the historical record and not entertain the more spiritual aspects of religion. The historical Christ is a child of the Jews. But were his teachings just another day at the office (schul) or something more radical, something unsettling enough to get him killed?

I think what Alexis is suggesting is that the Christian influence is like a tsunami, and the people "donning the other hats" are more like ripples on top of the Big Wave. They are along for the ride, and are Christians whether they know it or not.

[David Quinn]

And in so doing, he is ignoring the even bigger tsunami of paganism and animalism, of which Christianity is but a ripple....

What it boils down to, basically, is that Alex's attachment to Christianity is causing him to be selective in his analysis.

In answering your point, Jesus might have been a radical, but just about everyone in the West ignores his radicalness from the outset. In no way is it a part of Western culture.

And note, irony is already surfacing in this thread, in that the radicalness of Jesus that Alex is presumably hinting at (that of the individual going beyond all cultures) is precisely the thing that he argues is impossible.

-

[Pam Seeback]

[To provide a sense of what I mean by submerged Christian zealotry, I would refer to MA's neat summation above. Some years back, it would have been phrased thus: The only meaningful sacrifice is to The Christ. Anything else is psuedo-sacrifice.]

The concept of "Christian" belongs under the umbrella of 'self', does it not?

[Alexis Jacobi]

This is such a nonsensical point of view, one that ultimately undermines itself. After all, Christianity emerged out of the Jewish culture, and the Jewish culture itself emerged out of a still more previous culture, and so on and so forth, going back into the mists of ancient pagan and animalist times. / So it could equally be argued that we are all paganists and animalists, that Christianity is a superficial manifestation of this. / Not that any of this matters to the individual who has broken free of all cultures, of course.

Well, I don't think the assertion/suggestion is so non-sensical. Most 'facts' about ourselves do not conform at all to our rational hopes or projections.

Monsieur Cousin Basil has I think understood what I meant. Certain ideas or potencies (some might use the term 'memes') have entered deeply into the substructure of our collective self. I would say it is a European thing, and hence an American thing, and given the scope and influence of Christianity in Australia, an Australian thing. I think there are cultures that are decidedly out of that range of influence: China for example.

I believe---and I honestly don't think it is because I favor Christianity, or Judaism, necessarily---that people's consciousness and behavior, in our cultures, reflect and express deeply integrated notions, or attitudes, or desires, that can be traced to hundreds of years of inculcation by religious agents. I have a feeling that it takes many generations to root it out. But I do certainly agree that underneath it is all that original paganism.

I also believe that you, David, express and manifest this Christian zeal. I know I have said that before, and I know it is not very well received. How could it be? I am referring to unconscious motivators and, I would suppose, 'unconscious motivations' could not exist in you.

The concept of "Christian" belongs under the umbrella of 'self', does it not?

The 'self' who wrote the above comes under the same concept of 'self', doesn't it? What 'no-self' of yours hits the keys on your keyboard? And how have you-can you get rid of it? (Is there something I'm not getting here?)

[I have more or less come to the conclusion that there is almost nothing we can know about Jesus the man. There is almost nothing historical (in the sense we now define it) in the group of stories we have about him. We can know a great deal, though, about Christology. Christology gives expression to many, many occult and overt meanings...that also get bound up with ideas ot truth, 'truth', and Truth. It is a vast arena, quite overwhelming.]

[David Quinn]

I also believe that you, David, express and manifest this Christian zeal.

There is certainly zeal. But Christian? I don't think so.

Unless, of course, you are choosing to define any kind of zeal to be Christian by default .....

-

[Anders Schlander]

Performing holy rites seems to be to be the selfish way of trying to, hopelessly, attain the qualities of the enlightened because they have no idea of what enlightenment is about. It happens in hinduism, christianity, and buddhism, where the few very wise texts of people who were enlightened, if you assume they are real, like Jesus, etc. have been completely misunderstood and caused people to do countless of these "holy" rites.

There's two ways, there's the one where you sacrifice your attachments with a love of truth, although motivated by the ego, your sacrifices lead you to undermine the ego and destroy it. However, then there would be the other way where one is attached to sacrifice rather than truth, in which case, you will sacrifice things, i.e. lose things, in order for the ego to gain in another sense.

It seems to me that the rites you mentioned in the first quote often have little to do with sacrifice of any kind, which makes them curious artifacts.

Holy rites involving sacrifice were historically performed to propitiate the unseen powers for whom they were intended, not to gain enlightenment in a spiritual sense, but to gain or maintain physical boons, such as good weather, large crops, victory in battle. The general sense is "Life is hard, but I will perform this ritual to make it a bit harder temporarily so that you might see fit to make it go easier for us this year..."

It is worthwhile to note that many sacrifices had an element of misdirection to them. It is much like Moe Howard saying "I will defend you to the last drop of -" and pointing at brother Shemp - "his blood."

There is not much self-flagellation going on in organized Christianity these days, for example. Priests in their expensive raiment, performing a mock-up of the Last Supper in front of people wearing their Sunday best. They don't even sacrifice too much money for the ingredients - tiny tasteless wafers instead of bread, and the cheapest, most vinegarish wine of which they force themselves to take only a tiny symbolic sip. These same priests then retire to their rectories in suburbia and indulge in Glen Livet and homosexual relations. Meanwhile, the flock disperses in BMWs and Audis, having sacrificed one hour of their weeks.

There is no discernible sacrifice to many modern religious rites. Perhaps this is understandable. Since the original rites from which they descended often entailed at least some sacrifice (you could no longer milk the goat you killed) but logically produced no material gain, it is as if the rites themselves gradually evolved to reflect their lack of production. ("We'll use a smaller goat this time - the gods don't seem to notice.")

Examples of people who are attached to sacrifices are people who place value in being seen to sacrifice things, in particular, asceticism where the goal is misunderstood and the thought is that sacrifice will make you a better more enlightened person,
but instead ends up going around in circles being attached to all these appearances of what they think being enlightened means. They sort of miss the point and go in the wrong directions, trying to sacrifice the wrong things in the wrong way.

There is no absolute right or wrong way, but in the end, either ones awareness of god increases, and ones ego decreases, or the opposite. Most people's relationship with God was an egotistical one, where God was seen as a being that would care about what humans did, hence, the killing of goats was a sacrifice of material wealth, but still getting nowhere towards enlightenment. They misunderstood the idea of the Kingdom. Sadly, most people would think that making their God happy in some way would bring about this so called heaven, but it would only increase their ego. And as much as there is ego, as much is the kingdom of heaven obscured from view.

The kingdom of heaven is simply the normal world seen with enlightened eyes, but now, as I said, people make many sacrifices in hopes of living in a heavenly state, the one that Jesus describes is then misunderstood and people go to church thousands of times, donating to charity, and doing other things that in essence benefit their egos and bring them no closer to what Jesus talks of. That of donating to charity is a modern holy rite for some people, and so is going to church and praying, but these things are, as I said, misunderstood and fitted in context of this God who is meant to be a wise father figure, a friend, a brother, a parent, a guardian, etc.

[cousinbasil]

And in so doing, he is ignoring the even bigger tsunami of paganism and animalism, of which Christianity is but a ripple....

That is like considering the sea and its normal behavior a tsunami, for that is what paganism and animalism (totemism, fetishism, etc.) all represent: the "ground state" of things religious. It is the unenlightened, ubiquitous backdrop from which enlightened thought springs and in most cases back into which it falls.

In your view, David, Christianity is but one thing to come along and is destined to die out. This view is historically unsupported, and I think what Alexis is trying to do is to see things as they are against their historical backdrop. I am not sure I concur that he demonstrates an attachment to any idea in particular, except the notion that it is okay to keep examining things anew.

I believe there is an overall direction to human history "in the large" if one doesn't get bogged down by individual patterns (the ripples.) For instance, the fall of the Roman Empire does not predict the fall of Western society or any other current stab at civilization or overall progress. It is like watching an infant stumble and fall and concluding that he will never walk.

Part of this direction that has taken hold "in the large" is what Alex is referring to. If a modern self-styled seeker decides to follow the Dalai Lama, it will not root out from him what his Christian environment has planted there. Even if a person wants to join a coven, she is apt to be a Sunday school teacher in the daytime or when there isn't a new moon. Christianity is a catalyst that drives thought's progress, and the presence of a catalyst assures that the new equilibrium cannot revert to the status of the old.

You keep insisting that almost no one who espouses Christianity has even an inkling to its true message. Presumably, this implies that you yourself do. This is a common belief among those exposed to Christianity, or any other line of intellectual inquiry which one may examine seriously at any length. But be that as it may, it signifies absolutely nothing in the grand scale of things, which I think is what Alex is pointing out. The changes wrought by Christianity and its spread - by hook or by crook - influence the very fiber of modern life. You can arrange the weft any way you want - the warp is not the same.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

re: Alexandria (as I baptised you before with, better than Alexis really):

• ... "referring to unconscious motivators".

The central idea of having unconscious aims and motivators belongs firmly to the realm of psychoanalysis and its legacy, which in itself became at the time a new religion with its holy texts and churches, 'good' news, dreams of salvation and inner circle mysteries and initiations. A typical post-Judeo one at that! Like the ancient pagan shamans, the professional and amateur psycho-analyst alike invoke, navigate or enact a landscape of myth, dream or technical terminology, often referring to places and states beyond our senses and memory to attempt to restore wellness or "soul", leading to some chimera of mental health.

A less religious and more truthful analysis of behavior lies in the simple idea of causality: actions driven by an untold amount of "motivators" ranging from genes, memes, plays, utter randomness, endless layers of camouflage, mirrors and projections, each with or without any goal. Some behavior might as pattern just exist and perpetuate solely for its own sake while fooling any onlooker into believing there's rhyme or reason to it, conjuring up the image of hiding somewhere in the realms of some "unconscious" or in guiding force or angels or demons. But this image is possible more often side-effect than cause.

Ultimately life, being a variety of existence, is way more complex and undetermined. Naturally the degree of insight into ones own nature can vary, but this is never just about understanding the details of our preferences or vocabulary; a never ending Minotaur's labyrinth - but about the nature of what is common to all this variety in the first place.

[David Quinn]

The changes wrought by Christianity and its spread - by hook or by crook - influence the very fiber of modern life. You can arrange the weft any way you want - the warp is not the same.

The whole issue boils down to whether an individual can break his conditioning and become a true radical. If that is possible, then Alex's point suddenly becomes null and void.

The desire to break one's conditioning might be start off being Christian in nature (for those individuals born into a Christian culture), but if one is successful, then one automatically ceases to be a Christian. All strains of Christianity have been thoroughly expunged from one's being.

If, on the other hand, it is impossible for anyone to break his conditioning, then the spiritual importance of Jesus disappears and Christianity itself becomes just another meaningless historical ripple.

Alex's viewpoint is nonsensical because it wants to affirm true individualism (e.g. in the case of Jesus) and the impossibility of true individualism (e.g. for all of us born into a Christian culture).

-

[Bob Michael]

The desire to break one's conditioning might be start off being Christian in nature (for those individuals born into a Christian culture), but if one is successful, then one automatically ceases to be a Christian.

A person who is 'called' by the Infinite may very well cease to be a Christian, but he'll forever embrace and strive to fully embody fundamental Christian principles, namely Christ's teachings, which are universal in scope. And are all one really needs to know and 'live' in order to be fully human, fully alive, and fully LOVE.

[Bob Michael]

"Christ's ways lend themselves as the seeds of a future religion. It is, essentially a religion of love. Love encompasses every kind of love. The love of your parents, the love between a man and a woman, the love of your neighbor and of your enemy, and the child.....One cannot cut apart love and say: You may let your love stream in this, but you must not let your love stream in that." (Wilhelm Reich - 'The Murder of Christ')

[David Quinn]

The desire to break one's conditioning might be start off being Christian in nature (for those individuals born into a Christian culture), but if one is successful, then one automatically ceases to be a Christian.

A person who is 'called' by the Infinite may very well cease to be a Christian, but he'll forever embrace and strive to fully embody fundamental Christian principles, namely Christ's teachings, which are universal in scope.

You mean the principles of "giving up everything" and hating one's "father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life" and striving to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect"...?

That I would agree with, but they can hardly be called "Christian principles". In my experience, no priest ever preaches them and no Christian ever practices them.

-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Christianity is a catalyst that drives thought's progress, and the presence of a catalyst assures that the new equilibrium cannot revert to the status of the old.

You make messy beliefs sound clean and scientific, when these sort of beliefs clump together like flavours in a stew. Yes, Christianity, a relatively late thought in Judaism, is one ingredient that many people in the West know all-too-well. Its purest form is the Disney themepark, both the magical communist superficial covering, and the barely concealed cynical business sense that many people consider "maturity".

But Christianity is "a" catalyst, and I hardly see how you leap from that to the "very fiber of modern life". For instance, the latest X-Men film was hierarchical and Olympian, a throwback to Greek theatre, and though the plot demanded that the main character be Jewish, there was none of that Jewish bad conscience in it. And that movie is more the rule than the exception. If you must insist on this point, say by defining "the fiber of modern life" as "Christianity", something fundamentalists are wont to do, you'd be stuck holding the uncomfortable position that the process of Californication does nothing but corrupt the fiber of the modern mind. A pure Christian despises actors: his own Christian theatricality is mocked by the blatantly honest lies of pagan theatre.

The "Others" in the West -- the pagans and gypsies and hedonists of all kinds -- outnumber and overpower the Christians. I'd go so far as to say pure Christians are a myth, propagated in large part by people who simply want to be "good Christians" (whatever that is). It's an egoistic desire to be in a club that doesn't even exist. But there's more roadside billboards than churches, and even churchgoers pay far more attention to the billboards. And that doesn't even account for the "Others" that come from Asia. If you are attentive to the principle of "wu wei", for example, even that tiny speck of Taoism completely overpowers all but the most disgusting overabundance of Christian seasoning. A few lines from the Tao te Ching can cleanse one's palate of the entire Bible.

But, as David pointed out, this is not the crux of the issue. Are humans so impotent that we must sup on whatever happens to fall into our simmering pot of beliefs? I believe, at some point, you can say that a bunch of beliefs are crap, and make the conscious decision to live otherwise. If you don't want Christianity in your belief stew, you can make something different.

Or can you? I wonder, what on earth makes Christianity so special that I can't do with it what I do with every other false belief, and disbelieve it? I can't think of any reason Alex grants it an exceptional status other than the following: Alex believes Christianity is completely true, and hence can't be rejected, like false beliefs, without denying truths about reality.

[Bob Michael]

You mean the principles of "giving up everything" and hating one's "father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life" and striving to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect"...?

Yes, absolutely. And this is precisely what I had to do (Luke 14: 26) in order to enter into a living relationship with the Infinite, which is to also be in harmonious relationship with all of life.

That I would agree with, but they can hardly be called "Christian principles". In my experience, no priest ever preaches them and no Christian ever practices them.

Indeed they are 'fundamental' Christian principles (Christ's teachings), which, as you rightly allude, are understood, practiced, and lived by virtually no one in the whole of Christendom. Christianity, like all religions, has completely lost it's initial radiance and glory and is totally dead so far as it being a sorely needed Light unto the world.