What would a Buddhist watch on the dammned thing anyway?
Welcome to UKHIppy
UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.
For me universe is the world of nature - from galaxies down to sub-atomic particles. I don't think the universe is god, although it may be a manifestation of god. I know it's an idea that's banded about, but I don't think god is simply the sum of all that exists.
This doesn't mean I think god is personal, but I tend to think god is transcendent - transcending space and time and other conditions that pertain in the universe.
However, I don't like to use the word 'god' much, as it has the judeo/christian/islamic resonance as a word in our western culture. I prefer to use 'the divine'.
There's oil there - allegedly ...the US cavalry will come to the rescue....
Not sure the cavalry will come to the rescue on this one. I read somewhere they're actually putting pressure on the UK to negotiate over the islands future.
It's not like it was back in the days of Reagan and Pinochet, both of whom lent their support for the thatcher war.
There's plenty of oil there, perhaps they can keep the islands themselves and drill for onshore reserves and we'll settle for offshore reserves. And as for a 'crude nation in decline' there's plenty more untapped plays in the North Sea, not to mention we've hardly gone west coast, married with more efficient extraction techniques, we've still got some for a little longer
I don't think 'crude colonial power in decline' refers to our oil reserves somehow. 'Colonial' is the key word.
Argentine president Christina Kirchner says Britain is a 'crude colonial power in decline' and that Cameron's attitude 'borders on stupidity'.
Have to agree with that.
And if the Argentines invade the Falklands again, what would we do? Don't have the armed forces to take it back again.
Maybe we could do a swap where we keep the Malvinas and they get the Isle of Wight...
It's a really bad paper filled with reactionary and ignorant opinionating. It isn't only pagans they're down on - recently they were slating the Archbishop of Canterbury over his criticism of the coalition.
If it's a "laid-back choose what you want" thing then is there any real meaning in it?
Is it only stuff that we don't choose, or that is anxiety provoking then that is useful for us?
Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I thought a totem is supposed to be a kind of spirit guide or helper. I'm not sure how or if you could 'give' a totem to someone. You could tell them what you believe your totem to be (although actually, some say you should keep it to yourself).
Some traditions, such as Lakota, say you have to go on a vision quest to find your totem(s).
It's always going to be hard for me to think of David Cameron as my friend, along with very many others. But probably thats because I think some people act in ways which damage both society and the planet itself mainly for personal advantage. Corporate heads for instance could be considered in some cases 'enemies of life'. The nuclear industry. I don't want them as friends. To see them as such would be to betray my own perceptions and principles.
On a personal level, people I actually know, I don't really have any enemies.
On your marks, get set, conspiracy theories go.........
The way they've handled the publicity - no photo, rapid burial at sea etc is sure to play right into the hands of conspiracy lovers everywhere.
'Tao that is spoken of is not the constant tao.
So says tao te ching.
So I think we need to be careful here.
Why the need to join a religion ?
It's taken me years to figure out that you don't need to join in or belong to be a spiritual person.I've NEVER found one that I'm comfortable with.. But then I'm a hedonist who loathes being told what to do
I'd agree with that, except I'm not sure if I qualify as a hedonist.
I wonder if it's actually 'truth' 'spirituality' or whatever people are after, or a kind of football team......
When we were all hippies in Ibiza we believed in love,freedom and soul (still do) - erm...
When was that?
Either way I tend to agree that if it says 'spiritual forum' on the label, you might expect a spiritual forum. However, you can't trust these labels. Personally I don't think this is a very spiritual place.
That doesn't mean I see much validity in your pic - it's a separate issue.
Advaita does say that. However, Dvaita argues that God is personal, rather like in the Abrahamic religions.
The Christian theological Keith Ward says that it is not that God is conscious, but that he is at least conscious, i.e. that saying that he is conscious is less untrue than saying he is unconscious. That strikes me as an important truth, and it looks to me that Advaita sees God as something like that.
In any case, in Hinduism the dispute between Dvaita and Advaita is often seen as an arcane concern, and that ordinary lay religious people can cheerfully practise the religion without worrying about it. As Dvaita is pretty clearly monotheist, that suggests to me that Advaita is more like monotheism than like some sort of exotic materialism.
Even in Buddhism, in Mahayana, the highest Buddha, the dharmakaya, does seem to be something like this; a Zen writer I was reading recently described it as "unconditioned consciousness".
I'm not sure you can really say Dvaita is 'monotheist'. For one thing, they don't all have the same god. Some see Krishna, others Shiva, others Kali as the proper object of their devotions etc.
Also, even the Hare Krishnas, perhaps the sect most similar to western religion, actually do believe in a whole pantheon of gods and goddesses as well as Krishna.
I don't know what a 'lay religious person' is in terms of Hinduism. But either way, there's probably an element that Advaita is too philosophical for the 'masses', so Dvaita is really a kind of simplification.
Advaita though isn't saying God is conscious or unconscious - but God is consciousness. Quite a big distinction there.
"God" does not mean "Mind".
To me, this seems like a good point. God does not mean mind, 'spirit' does not mean mind. 'Consciousness' does not mean mind.
I'm not sure quite what some people mean at all by 'God'. The personal being, the 'father' of judeo/christian/islamic belief is usually the idea they have in this culture.
Hinduism, or more specifically Advaiata Vedanta, says the absolute, God if you like, is being-bliss-awareness, insofar as it can be categorized at all. High above both mind and matter.
Probably, some of the Greek and Roman pagan philosophers had a similar idea with the concept of the 'one'.(Plato and Plotinus for example) In the late Roman empire period there was some influence from these sources entering Christian thinking until it was pretty much quashed by the church.
Anyway, to say the universe originates from either mind or matter seems to me to be just an example of limited thinking.
2. The Sermon on the Mount includes commands that are really impossible to live by, unless one is a tramp, a prisoner or a slave, perhaps. Eg. give anything one has to anyone who asks; do not save treasure on earth (OK, do I have to cancel my pension plan?); go the extra mile when commanded (OK, do I have to pay twice my stated level of income tax?).
Maybe they're meant to be beyond what we think is possible, to give a kind of higher standard which we can aspire to. If it just said something to the effect of ' just pile up money for yourself, work hard, pay your taxes etc, it wouldn't be very much of a challenge would it? Even if that is the agenda of many so-called Christians today and throughout history.
Probably it's meant to indicate that spiritual values are more important than material.
JC is I think, speaking of acts of love, which can't necessarily be justified by the 'prudent' 'rationalist' type mindset.
I'm a bit mystified why you think going the extra mile might imply paying more tax. It could surely as easily mean going to jail because of refusal to pay taxes that are to be used for things like warfare.....
Just a few thoughts, and note that I'm not really a Christian myself.
"To God: if you have drawn a circle, go into it yourself and see how you would do"
People who retain the same belief system as people had centuries ago, during the burnings, the conquest of the Americas, the suppression of early science etc etc, may well expect to have their belief system attacked. And with Christianity, nothing has changed on a fundamental level - how could it?
The vatican said recently that ordaining women priests is as grave sin as child abuse.
How sick are these people? Should we accept such a belief system in a high place in the mass consciousness?
It isn't that beliefs are just some personal thing one has at home. They influence big historical processes. People in Arabia get stoned to death. In India, would be young sadhus get their penis broken by guru....
Just a few thoughts.
Ummm...I was talking to the OP. I think it's a little self-righteous to imply that someon'es religion is stupid. Everyone has faith, even if said faith is in relation to atheism. Suffice to say I think the OP is extremely ignorant. Excuse me, I have to go and play with the traffic now
was he the first hippy ?
I've had the idea that he might have been.
Certainly he was a champion of individual liberty and creativity. Also, he was like a one man show. He designed and actually printed his own works in a kind of DIY cottage industry along with his wife who was his only helper in the process. God alone knows what one of these originals would fetch now at auction, yet he died in relative poverty and obscurity.
an inspirational figure for anyone looking outside the box;)
I loved the fact he used to garden in the nude... Visionary,genius and poet ..but still rather batty at times which makes him rather endearing...as there is nothing worse than a genius without idiosyncrasies:)
It was probably the idiosyncracies that made Blake the unique genius he was.
I like the naked garden thing too, and the fact that by doing that he thought he was getting back to paradise, the garden of eden before the fall. When we were in tune with nature......so in way he even had a kind of green agenda. And he hated the 'dark satanic mills' of the industrial revolution...at exactly the right time in history.
Great, now my beliefs are stupid. Thanks a bunch mate, shall I top myself now or later? Seen as the core of my extstence is quite obviously a complete waste of time...
Is it me you're talking to?
If so, no - I didn't say you or your beliefs are stupid.
But actually, I hardly know what your beliefs are, so it wouldn't be possible for me to say. I was only pointing out my own views, which like everybody else's are subject to error, and in need of constant renewal ( 'new every morning' as Xians sing).
But really, are your beliefs your existence? If they were wrong, existence would still be there I think. Myself, I've had various adventures with 'beliefs' over a long, ,long time, and although many once cherished notions have crumbled to dust, still, here I am. Didn't top myself when the universe was torn to bits, or jump in the river when I realized just how much of a poisonous influence a good many of my beliefs had been.
Sadly, I lost some good years in the process, but also, learned and grew a lot. Enough even to talk seriously to a beetroot.
One could argue he was a metaphysist or occultist depending on the interpretation.....and I've heard some scholars argue that he was an anarchist...that's another educated opinion for you
Well some people in the past have been quite anarchistic on the basis of what they understood from Christian doctrine, although obviously, this differed from the orthodox views on it.
Blake was a metaphysicist, I don't think an 'occultist' in the accepted sense. He may have been an occultist in the sense that the occult is that which is hidden, occluded from ordinary consciousness.
WB was also a visionary who had spontaneous visions from his childhood onwards (hence some say he was insane), one of the greatest poets of the english language, a great engraver and painter, and certainly a man who believed in Jesus, even if his vision of Jesus was not that of the churches.
I could quote many passages from Blake to support the view that he was ultimately a Christian. But just one, from Blake's Laocoon will do "God is Jesus".(Please understand this is not my own view, but I do like Blake) To me, he represents a very rare thing - an acceptable face of Christianity, although that may seem like a contradiction.
Really like how you picked William Blake to quote, who is famous for hating conventional religious practice and religion in general. Sort of made me laugh alout. Funny.
Funny how his 'Jerusalem' hymn has become one of the faves of the Anglican church isn't it?
Although unconventional, anyone familiar with WB can't doubt he was underneath it all a Christian.
You asked for 'educated opinion' -
Then I expect you will be sending yule cards to our beetroot plants this year?
No. I don't really go for 'yule'. I'm not a 'pagan'.
But if I had a beetroot plant, I'd probably talk to it, tell it I loved it...give it it's due as a manifestation of the spirit in my life..(actually, I don't really eat beetroot much, don't particularly care for the flavor, seems bitter....like a lot of people you run into...)
But it occurs to me here that what you think is that we would relate to other living things in the constructed and rote ways we relate to other human beings. Sending a 'yule' card.
But it should be obvious that one relates to people in one way, animals in another, and so on.
That doesn't at all preclude their being relatives.
And where my human relative are concerned, I'd rather see them face to face and wish them a nice yule than send some pointless piece of cardboard.
"And thus with wrath He did subdue
The serpent bulk of Nature's dross,
Till He had nail'd it to the Cross."
From 'The Everlasting Gospel' by William Blake.
Blake here seems to articulate well the anti-nature aspect of Christianity.
But this thread isn't about Christianity, but Paganism, so if you want to talk about this lets do it on another thread.
I too would rather have an educated opinion.
It should be noted first that the term “curse” is not used in biblical parlance in the modern sense of profanity. Rather, a “curse” was a pronouncement of judgment upon a person or object (cf. Mt. 25:41). In this case, there was a command miracle by which Christ spoke words that would cause this tree to die. It was not a purposeless act of intemperance. It represented a strong object-lesson that the disciples needed to learn (and numerous others since that time as well).
From the link above.
Well I'm perhaps a bit stupid, but I can't see any sense in cursing a tree. Also, this is extremely patronizing in suggesting we think 'curse' means only 'swear'.
'Give me what I want or I'll kill you' seems to be the only lesson here.