Spiritual fascism

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

I like to see Chopra adopts a frugal lifestyle, which can still be effective and even more effective in teaching people to cut through spiritual materialism.

The same also with Billy Graham and the Vatican popes, and Pat Robertson, and all similar personalities.

Can all these people who preach immaterial spiritualism live a life prescribed by Jesus Christ for his disciples: going forth without shoes and pockets and a second tunic or set of clothings? Yes, they can, but they won't because they are not. I will presume to judge them, truly, genuinly, non-compromisedly spiritual.

Susma Rio Sep

Namaste Susma,

why would a Buddhist monk, for instance, try to live a live that Jesus prescribed for His disciples?

more over... why would a Christian live a life that Mohammad said was correct or a Muslim live a life that Jesus said was correct?

these seem like completely unrelated sets of values to me.

it would be akin to me saying to a Christian... well, if you don't live your life like Ganesha says that you should, you're going to be reborn as a slug. totally and completely different mind sets and views... in my opinion.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Susma,

why would a Buddhist monk, for instance, try to live a live that Jesus prescribed for His disciples?

more over... why would a Christian live a life that Mohammad said was correct or a Muslim live a life that Jesus said was correct?

these seem like completely unrelated sets of values to me.

Agreed that each religious system prescribes its own lifestyle. But I would want to maintain that there are common elements in most religions that go for asceticism as a ladder to spirituality. (That word again, and I am just using it in the Christian sense of not being worldly, materialistic, carnal, etc., but concentrated in the soul and in the after-world life.)

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, don't they all preach detachment from physical desires and earthly cravings?

Susma Rio Sep

[brucegdc]

It depends, Susma... while there are ascetics in all religions you mention, there are also branches who follow other paths. Judaism is not in general ascetic in its approach to spirituality - renouncing the world has not been a favorite pastime. I'll leave Buddhism to your ongoing threads with Vajradhara...

Nor are all Christian groups equally enamoured of asceticism - poverty is not a goal for most groups, although it is one path that can be followed in monasticism.

I think it's part of human nature to think "it feels good, so it must be spiritually bad" - and most faiths have a subset that goes that way (sometimes to extremes). But that doesn't say that it's a common element of these religions - only that each has a subset that follow it.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

to add to what brucegdc had to say...

remember... the Buddha tried the ascetic route intially and found that it was not capable of delivering him to the other shore, thus the advent of the Middle Way, between the extremes of asceticism and sensuality.

[Pamela]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Agreed that each religious system prescribes its own lifestyle. But I would want to maintain that there are common elements in most religions that go for asceticism as a ladder to spirituality. (That word again, and I am just using it in the Christian sense of not being worldly, materialistic, carnal, etc., but concentrated in the soul and in the after-world life.)

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, don't they all preach detachment from physical desires and earthly cravings?

Susma Rio Sep

Christ may have told his disciples to carry nothing but we also hear about the disciples picking grain on the sabbath when hunger dictated. Jesus was known to eat with the publicans and sinners, and considering the gracious man he was, I doubt he turned up his nose to the banquet before him and insisted on a simple piece of bread. As a matter of fact, in Matthew 11:18-19, Jesus wryly points out, “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’”

Detachment is not the same as disdain. Detachment does not involve self-reproach, or recrimination.

Asceticism, as well as other prescriptive practices, can be prone to spiritual fascism. It almost seems to defeat the purpose of detachment, by calling frequent attention to the practices it despises, while ignoring the virtues espoused and practiced by those criticised. I remember reading about vegetarian Buddhists complaining about the Dalai Lama’s eating habits, and shaking my head at the audacity.

Spiritual fascism seems to love to tout practices, key phrases, stances, while of course claiming to be above it all. As others point out, it’s not found just in religion. Atheists are just as prone to look down on the ‘superstitions’ of the religious as any worshipper. The point is that spiritual fascism is a mental platform, a charade where we wield our beliefs- social, psychological, political, religious- as if they were facts, and scientific standards of inherent worth.

[Septegram]

Originally Posted by emong

I think the real question is why are we offended by a display of superiority. Do we assume another is wrong because he feels he is right?

No, I assume the other is wrong because zie assumes I am wrong

Septegram

[Fern]

Originally Posted by foundationist.org

I have met quite a few people in life who claimed to be spiritual … even somewhat enlightened – yet these people I know have the very nerve to regard themselves as superior also – and even state that those who are not as enlightened as they have no particular right of life.

This is Spiritual Fascism.

There is a spiritual truth that we are all equal, despite our diversity – and that we should endeavour to love one another despite whatever faults we may perceive in each other.

Those who claim to be spiritual, yet regard as worthless others for no crime other than being different to they, are not spiritual people – they are merely fascists with some limited measure of spiritual insight.

Spiritual people may be regarded so, not for their beliefs, not for theor thoughts, but for their humility. The humble do not elevate themselves. Those who are humble are greatest before God.

I was told daily as a child "The ground is level at the foot of the cross, you are no better than they and they are no better than you". I often challenge those who state they are superior to me to live up to this message - sometimes they do, sometimes they don't - but they almost always think about it.

I don't know a lot about other faith traditions, but my guess is that there is something in them all which says something similar to the saying my mother taught me as a child. I'm willing to bet that God - whoever you see the deity as - loves each and every one of us, equally, For some reason, this thought or belief seems to elude us quite frequently, hence, we become sure that God loves us more because we are right - or more right than 'those' people... A sad commentary on human kind.

Peace to all,

Fern

[Norgenen]

Those who have strong spiritual ideas, usually also have the idea of being above and outside the civilization. At some level, in some form. They believe this is necessary for knowing 'the spiritual'. I think it is possible to retain a mutual respect for others, and see the individual who searches, as above and elevated.
When this idea is questioned; the idea of being above civilization, it does not change the original idea. The idea remains, throughout the centuries. Calling this 'spiritual fascism', is mundane and superficial. It is only scratching the surface.
At the center of this idea, is the desire for the individual to transcend, and rise above. And to attain Knowledge and Wisdom; to find the Truth itself.

[JJM]

All human beings sin. Those who don't sin allot in the normal sense( stealing, antagonizing, mocking, ext.) often sin but they don't see it. So, they think that they never do that and rather than trying to calmly change though around them they shun and look down upon others. Those are the people they should be talking to those who sin often. While I think it is possible for someone to be a better person than another I don't think that either is worth more to God and is more worthy of salvation one is just closer to being there and that person needs to realize that or they are not any more important than the other person. I think that assuming that someone will go to hell is wrong in itself.

____________________________________________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[Anzac]

Surely as God as the creator and with man possessing free will any form of hierarchical Church or organization is by definiton spiritual fascism? Aren't the imposing THEIR beliefs rather than those of their religion as their is often discussion about what a deity really meant by doing such and such an action. By having a structured religion where you look up to another you are having your spirituality quashed and hampered?

If you truly show and care as a deity expects then why not only see them as the highest and true rank of authority rather than another personal of equal power with the same free will?

[LittleLotus]

Their needs to be more respect and less ignorence in the world.

My philosophy is that everyone needs to find their own path, and let people live their lives the way they want to.

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Zdrastvuitsye, hola, shalom, salaam, Dia dhuit, namastar ji, hej, konnichiwa, squeak, meow, :wave: Norgenen.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[Susma Rio Sep]

JJM writes:

All human beings sin. Those who don't sin allot in the normal sense( stealing, antagonizing, mocking, ext.) often sin but they don't see it. So, they think that they never do that and rather than trying to calmly change though around them they shun and look down upon others.

Whether you sin a lot or not, my recommendation to all sinners is to go into the privacy of your room and sin in solitude.

If you have to sin with another, get his consent first; then both of you repair to the privacy of a room and sin in solitude.

Make sure also that your sins don't bring about any adverse repercussions on others; take the time and trouble to prevent any such adverse repercussions on others.

If you would sin in public, then make sure that you don't get in trouble with the partrolman on the beat; and others would take no offense or notice and report you to the patrolman.

Susma Rio Sep

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

JJM writes:



Whether you sin a lot or not, my recommendation to all sinners is to go into the privacy of your room and sin in solitude.

If you have to sin with another, get his consent first; then both of you repair to the privacy of a room and sin in solitude.

Make sure also that your sins don't bring about any adverse repercussions on others; take the time and trouble to prevent any such adverse repercussions on others.

If you would sin in public, then make sure that you don't get in trouble with the partrolman on the beat; and others would take no offense or notice and report you to the patrolman.

Susma Rio Sep

I ask in the most respectful way possible. Why on earth would any one do something they think is wrong with complete knowledge of what they are doing. I understand that some people have physical needs that can drive them to sin (example: heroine addict robbing a store for money) or not realizing you did it until later. (Example: mocking some one without realizing it and then seeing what you had done) but to plan and set a time to do and in a complete right state of mind doesn't make any sense to me. Why would some one do this? Could you really think it bad that bad?

Originally Posted by [b

Anzac[/b]]
Surely as God as the creator and with man possessing free will any form of hierarchical Church or organization is by definiton spiritual fascism? Aren't the imposing THEIR beliefs rather than those of their religion as their is often discussion about what a deity really meant by doing such and such an action. By having a structured religion where you look up to another you are having your spirituality quashed and hampered?

If you truly show and care as a deity expects then why not only see them as the highest and true rank of authority rather than another personal of equal power with the same free will?

I'm confused at this. Why would the fact that a church has a hierarchy make it impose it's beliefs on some one more than one that doesn‘t? Though do not all churches have some sort of hierarchy. Also, Is not anyone stating their opinion trying to impose it on others? Could you elaborate?

__________________________________________________ ________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

[DrChaos]

We all judge everyone and sin all the time. I know you all do to, thinking to yourself "How can he/she do that?", it is almost impossible. Also, Susma, I agree with JJM in not understanding how you "plan" sin, most the time I sin, I'm not aware until well after. I have a couple of questions:
1)Is every sin as bad as the next (i.e. killing and stealing are equally bad)
2)If #1 is true, which I think it is (we are all the same in God's eyes), does that mean that concious sins are the same as unconcious ones?

I have a hard time with that. But, I guess concious sinners have a "harder" time being forgiven (most of the time) because they did the sin on purpose, so they wouldn't be as remorseful.