Originally posted by jill1978
Leo, I've noticed that you seem to reference several religions, and you seem to be a very spiritual person. Do you take peices of knowledge from all religions and blend them. Have you studied religion?
A Historian studies everything, but yes I have studied Religions in particular. At present Catholicism is a Battleground between the contingents of the Antichrist (Paul) and True Religionists of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who appears in Apparitions, and sends down Grace upon Her Saints. There is much Truth in the Marian Institutions of the Catholic Church -- the Religious Orders and certain Marian Doctrines. But much of the Spiritual Practices have been confined to the virtual prisons of the Monasteries and Convents. It was the Truce that the Paulist Bishops made with the True Religionists -- that the Marians could practice True Religion as long as they took it off behind Walls that would separate them from the Laity who would be left to the influences of the Bishops.
But the Yoga Traditions from the Indian Subcontinent are not nearly so secret, and one can practice these Spiritual Techniques without submitting to voluntary imprisonment to please some antichristical Bishop. Sufis, who trace themselves back to Zoroastrianism, the First and perhaps greatest Moral Religion, also have their spiritual practices, but they are similar enough to the various Yoga Techniques, that it would not be worth quibbling over. What we can get from the Zoroastrians, is the sense that Morality must never be divorced from Spirituality. Buddhism, in its mahayana forms, is both moral and spiritual. But the problem with Buddhism is that it can be almost entirely cerebral. But then you have Tantric Buddhism which does for Buddhism what Kundalini Yoga does for the Hindu/Indian Yogin. But the problem with Tantric Yoga and Tantric Buddhism was that it was coopted by a bunch of sexual perverts at some point along the line, and now it is used as an excuse to be endlessly playing with oneself. if one has any self-respect, then Kundalini Yoga is preferred to anything with the word "tantra' associated to it. Indeed, I used to stress that I was an adherent to the Vedantic Traditions so that nobody would mistake me for a Tantric, though it may have been over squeamish of me, since it would be difficult to explain Kundalini Yoga without shifting over to Tantric models and dynamics.
Some of the older Philosophical Religions are a bit dated. Taoism, Hinayana Buddhism, and a lot of Zen are not much more advanced than Stoicism -- the idea that Peace of Mind is the ultimate goal. And that Stoicism is largely amoral. Even the Bhagavad Gita is largely just a Stoic Argument -- dismissing moral concerns with the reassurance that Evil is a dirty job but somebody has to do it. But there are hints of Zoroastrian Morality in it and so it somewhat redeems itself.
Then there was the Modern Innovation to the Higher Religions -- Emotional Devotion. It seemed to occur after the first Millenium. The Krishna Devotion became popular in the South of India in reaction against the dry Vedanta of the Brahmin Ruling Class Priests. It had its Saints. Almost simultaneously in Europe we began to see a Devotion to the Infant Jesus. The Infant Krishna in India, and the Infant Christ in Europe. Then there are the parallels between the Goddess Worship of the Indus Traditons and those of the Catholic Church. yes, the Bishops insist it is not 'Worship', but that is in conformance to the surrender treaties and arrangements made to the protestant powers, but one should never take one's doctrines from duress. Besides, what is the difference between 'Worship' and what they prefer to call 'Veneration' anyway -- does one bow any less deeply for Veneration as for Worship. It is a legal distinction only, and therefore the greatest proof of how silly the bishops are.
Speaking of duress... that is the problem I have with Islam. Mohamed started by going to War with the Ruling Classes of Mecca for their idolatry with the Big Black Rock and their other superstitious practices. But then Mohamed loses his War and goes to the Peace Table and signs away the complete future of Islam by making it a Religious Duty to visit Mecca and pay homage to the Big Black Rock and engage in all the Superstitious Activities that he had gone to War to condemn. Now, I am coward enough myself to understand how a man could work hard to avoid martyrdom, and so I would not enjoy criticizing Mohamed for what he did. But he did get a very many people killed in fighting his War, and one wonders why he would not die himself before he would completely surrender what where his Religious Principals. and then I am flabberghasted that apparently nobody in the Islamic World sees it the way I do. Much of the problem is in the way the Koran was compiled -- from the Largest Entries to the smallest, when the Poems of Mohamed should have been arranged in chronological order as they were written. Then it would have been clear that he went from Religious Principal to surrender and doctrines of duress. Even in the Koran, Mohammed had mentioned that one need not abide by Religious Oaths made under duress. I wonder when some Islamic Authority will ever take that passage to heart and finally throw it in the face of those Fat Saudis who still expect Muslims from all over the world to grovel before their Big Black Rock and pay the Meccan Tourist Bureau their Tribute, just as when they did when Mohammed lost his War.
|
|
Bookmarks