Religious Systems and Cultural Environment

[Guest guest]

[ I wrote ] It is my believe that Religion does not operate in a

vaccum. To understand the evolution of Religions and Religious

Thoughts, one need to understand first the social, political and

economic factors that influence Religion. If you want to change

Religious thinking, you need to address all these issues first,

otherwise no matter what you do, you can argue till the cow comes

home, nothing will change. You can stand and shout " This is

patriachal! That is Patriachal!" I doubt it will have any effect. I

personally would say : you my dear friend dont know what you are

talking about.

 

This brings me to yet to another question : Does this means that

religious system cannot help but be a little stuck in the cultural

environment that produced it? Any takers for this question ????

hahahaaaa

[Guest guest]

Okay Nora ...

 

I'll bite. I think any religious system operates on many levels.

 

When I said, for instance, that patriarchy does not come into play

in the Shakta Tantras, I was talking about its subtle aspects. My

feeling is that japa or pooja is a subtle aspect of Shaktism. That

is where you use the mantras, use the systems, rather than endlessly

dissecting and discussing and socially critiquing them:

 

{"The temptation to take the precious things we have apart to see

how they work, must be resisted -- for they will never fit together

again." -- B. Bragg, Must I Paint You a Picture?}

 

Having said that, religion also does operate on the gross material

level -- and it must because that is where we humans operate most of

the time. This phenomenon can be both positive and negative.

 

The positive is seva -- service; transforming all of our thoughts

and actions into acts of worship. That is where Mary Ann and I

agreed: You have to try and translate what you believe into social

action that actually helps people, and moves the world around you

just a little closer to what you spiritually consider to be the

ideal. It is not easy; most people have a long way to go. I

certainly do. But it is a goal and even a commitment to constant

self- and societal betterment. But my position is: That is an

activity for the material world. When you enter into the subtle

aspects of your sadhana, these things because baggage, dragging you

down and closing your mind.

 

Which brings me to the negative aspects that can arise when you're

more interested in surfaces than substance. Like fundamentalist

Christians who'll condemn you to hell unless you use the

label "Jesus" in conceiving and naming the Divine -- and then shoot

up an abortion clinic in the name of Divine Love. Like the

fundamentalist Jews in Israeli settlements, who would tear apart

their society, nation and the entire region rather than leave some

dusty piece of real estate that "their" God promised to "them." Like

the fundamentalist Muslim who'll blow up a schoolbus, or fly a plane

into an office tower in the service of "their" God.

 

Those are extreme examples to illustrate the problems that occur

when gross/material intellectual models and social ideals (i.e. the

various "-isms") get mixed up with spiritual practice.

 

Riane Eisler has every right to understand history and humanity in

terms of dominators and patriarchy. Similarly, Karl Marx had every

right to understand history and humanity in terms of class struggle.

And the current Wall Street whiz kids are perfectly entitled to

understand history and humanity in terms of commercial exchange. And

you know what? They are all correct to some extent and in certain

contexts -- but each model ultimately explains but a single

dimension of the infinitely complexity that is human society and

history.

 

And spiritual reality simply transcends all that. Shaktism, perhaps

most powerfully among world religions, insists that we engage the

world, not deny it. But still -- when it is time for japa, puja,

dhyana ... we must leave it at the doorstep for a while or we will

never see beyond it, and we will ultimately be trapped and undone by

it.

 

That's my response anyway ...

 

DB

 

 

, "N. Madasamy"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> [ I wrote ] It is my believe that Religion does not operate in a

> vaccum. To understand the evolution of Religions and Religious

> Thoughts, one need to understand first the social, political and

> economic factors that influence Religion. If you want to change

> Religious thinking, you need to address all these issues first,

> otherwise no matter what you do, you can argue till the cow comes

> home, nothing will change. You can stand and shout " This is

> patriachal! That is Patriachal!" I doubt it will have any effect.

I

> personally would say : you my dear friend dont know what you are

> talking about.

>

> This brings me to yet to another question : Does this means that

> religious system cannot help but be a little stuck in the cultural

> environment that produced it? Any takers for this question ????

> hahahaaaa

[Guest guest]

Namaste, namaste,

 

You always make me think.

 

I have a lot that I would say, but not the luxury of time right now.

 

First, your examples of the different people and their views of the

world remind me of a book that has a picture of a feather on the

front cover. Ah, now I remember "Illusions: the Adventures of a

Reluctant Messiah"

 

Second,

 

When I take the time to meditate, I am better in the world than when

I do not. If karma is related to momentum then meditation gives the

universe a chance to interrupt my momentum and possibly send me in a

different direction, or just put a different "english" on my spin.

 

Thank you for reminding me.

 

Blessings,

 

prainbow

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Okay Nora ...

>

> I'll bite. I think any religious system operates on many levels.

>

> When I said, for instance, that patriarchy does not come into play

> in the Shakta Tantras, I was talking about its subtle aspects. My

> feeling is that japa or pooja is a subtle aspect of Shaktism. That

> is where you use the mantras, use the systems, rather than

endlessly

> dissecting and discussing and socially critiquing them:

>

> {"The temptation to take the precious things we have apart to see

> how they work, must be resisted -- for they will never fit together

> again." -- B. Bragg, Must I Paint You a Picture?}

>

> Having said that, religion also does operate on the gross material

> level -- and it must because that is where we humans operate most

of

> the time. This phenomenon can be both positive and negative.

>

> The positive is seva -- service; transforming all of our thoughts

> and actions into acts of worship. That is where Mary Ann and I

> agreed: You have to try and translate what you believe into social

> action that actually helps people, and moves the world around you

> just a little closer to what you spiritually consider to be the

> ideal. It is not easy; most people have a long way to go. I

> certainly do. But it is a goal and even a commitment to constant

> self- and societal betterment. But my position is: That is an

> activity for the material world. When you enter into the subtle

> aspects of your sadhana, these things because baggage, dragging you

> down and closing your mind.

>

> Which brings me to the negative aspects that can arise when you're

> more interested in surfaces than substance. Like fundamentalist

> Christians who'll condemn you to hell unless you use the

> label "Jesus" in conceiving and naming the Divine -- and then shoot

> up an abortion clinic in the name of Divine Love. Like the

> fundamentalist Jews in Israeli settlements, who would tear apart

> their society, nation and the entire region rather than leave some

> dusty piece of real estate that "their" God promised to "them."

Like

> the fundamentalist Muslim who'll blow up a schoolbus, or fly a

plane

> into an office tower in the service of "their" God.

>

> Those are extreme examples to illustrate the problems that occur

> when gross/material intellectual models and social ideals (i.e. the

> various "-isms") get mixed up with spiritual practice.

>

> Riane Eisler has every right to understand history and humanity in

> terms of dominators and patriarchy. Similarly, Karl Marx had every

> right to understand history and humanity in terms of class

struggle.

> And the current Wall Street whiz kids are perfectly entitled to

> understand history and humanity in terms of commercial exchange.

And

> you know what? They are all correct to some extent and in certain

> contexts -- but each model ultimately explains but a single

> dimension of the infinitely complexity that is human society and

> history.

>

> And spiritual reality simply transcends all that. Shaktism, perhaps

> most powerfully among world religions, insists that we engage the

> world, not deny it. But still -- when it is time for japa, puja,

> dhyana ... we must leave it at the doorstep for a while or we will

> never see beyond it, and we will ultimately be trapped and undone

by

> it.

>

> That's my response anyway ...

>

> DB

>

>

> , "N. Madasamy"

> <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> > [ I wrote ] It is my believe that Religion does not operate in a

> > vaccum. To understand the evolution of Religions and Religious

> > Thoughts, one need to understand first the social, political and

> > economic factors that influence Religion. If you want to change

> > Religious thinking, you need to address all these issues first,

> > otherwise no matter what you do, you can argue till the cow comes

> > home, nothing will change. You can stand and shout " This is

> > patriachal! That is Patriachal!" I doubt it will have any effect.

> I

> > personally would say : you my dear friend dont know what you are

> > talking about.

> >

> > This brings me to yet to another question : Does this means that

> > religious system cannot help but be a little stuck in the

cultural

> > environment that produced it? Any takers for this question ????

> > hahahaaaa