Guest guest Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 Namaste, Time for this again I think...>COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CARNALITAS. > This is a version of cognitive dissonance that specifically applies > to spirituality, especially Buddhism and Hinduism and their > adherents. The Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning for Carnalitas;- > Sensuality, Unspirituality and Fleshiness. > In the Eastern Philosophies there is a basic tenet called Ahimsa or > resistance to the practice of violence;--in other words practice non- > violence. It is the essential teaching of the Buddha and all the > Hindu teachers, Avatars and Yogis. This is why `meat-eating' is not > practiced by these people. > However there are many on the `so called' spiritual path, especially > Westerners, who have a conflict with this. They know and understand > the teaching on Ahimsa and meat eating but yet ignore it and worse, > try and rationalize it, with innumerable excuses on why they still > partake of meat. > > Usually with ideas like; `All is one', it doesn't matter what one > eats and so on. There seems to be a gap between the tenet of non- > violence and what they consume. They do not seem to connect the > torture and suffering of animals and what is on their plate. > Obviously there is some Egoistic desire and habit associated with > meat eating, which is stronger than their professed spirituality, > which demands Ahimsa. > I have studied this condition in spiritual seekers for some years > and could never understand the `disconnect'. > I finally decided that it is similar to the `True Believer > Syndrome', and also `Cognitive Dissonance', both of which are > cognitive disfunctions. > So I have coined the phrase `Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas', to > describe this condition. > It only applies to `Eastern Spiritual Seekers', for other people who > eat meat have no conflict, as it is accepted as part of their > culture; So no cognitive dissonance arises……………..Tony O'Clery. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Hello all, I have been following the threads for the last few months .And now enter the group with this response to Tony's thread on Ahimsa . And it is this ,Eating meat has nothing to do with my true nature ,eating meat I will still be as I am ,not eating meat, I will still be as I am . Is my nature based on a behavior? Am I relying on limited actions to behave according to some idea about non violence? This Self nature is not dependant on some idea about consuming food , seeing who I am first, shows me that I am not somebody relying on some moral code or action but that I am the heart that is whole and complete .Having known who I am,I will eat what I eat and can decide not to eat meat and not worry about what others eat and I can care that other beings are not treated cruelly and Still be as I am.As Bhagavan says, 'Seeing is being' it is not a practice or idea . When I am,I do not think " Now I am practicing ahimsa, they are not " , there is no commentary about ahimsa. These are codes and conditions to help ease the mind into quietness so that the seeker can realize his true nature.They are karmic actions used so that the mind becomes clear and can inquire.An example is, when the seeker is told that the world is unreal ;this is a device in order that the seeker enter into an introspective state and inquire directly into being. Shankar (As Tony has referred to in another post with his YOU Tube testing) not only says that the world is real, but that it is unreal. When we superimpose on the undifferentiated Self and make the idea of a " meat eater " real, thinking that others on the spiritual path shouldn't be doing this, which is called a measurement or labeling (somewhere I have read that Maya means to measure). You see a meat eater and your knowledge of Ahimsa springs up and you think about it in terms of Ahimsa and your knowledge of 'spiritual people' with cognitive dissonance arises.Atma Vichar is not practicing Ahimsa yet non violence comes in the form of wisdom and shanti which are revealed in Atma Vichar. By the way it is common for Tibetan Buddhist to eat meat and I have heard that the Dalai Lama's physician advised him to eat meat at some time.Are they practicing ahimsa? They are mostly loving and generously kind :)They even wish all the beings in hell peace , I don't see them having Cognitive dissonance.It is known that Bhagavan hit Dandi Swami with a force so hard that it snapped his walking stick in two, was he practicing Ahimsa ? Certianly he was trying to break up a fight,I don't think he thought too much about it afterwards. The thinking in Cognitive dissonace is equivilant to thinking about thinking. Direct beingness is without such cares. Prem and Shanti , Marco . , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Namaste, > > Time for this again I think...> >COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CARNALITAS. > > This is a version of cognitive dissonance that specifically applies > > to spirituality, especially Buddhism and Hinduism and their > > adherents. The Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning for Carnalitas;- > > Sensuality, Unspirituality and Fleshiness. > > In the Eastern Philosophies there is a basic tenet called Ahimsa or > > resistance to the practice of violence;--in other words practice > non- > > violence. It is the essential teaching of the Buddha and all the > > Hindu teachers, Avatars and Yogis. This is why `meat-eating' is not > > practiced by these people. > > However there are many on the `so called' spiritual path, especially > > Westerners, who have a conflict with this. They know and understand > > the teaching on Ahimsa and meat eating but yet ignore it and worse, > > try and rationalize it, with innumerable excuses on why they still > > partake of meat. > > > > Usually with ideas like; `All is one', it doesn't matter what one > > eats and so on. There seems to be a gap between the tenet of non- > > violence and what they consume. They do not seem to connect the > > torture and suffering of animals and what is on their plate. > > Obviously there is some Egoistic desire and habit associated with > > meat eating, which is stronger than their professed spirituality, > > which demands Ahimsa. > > I have studied this condition in spiritual seekers for some years > > and could never understand the `disconnect'. > > I finally decided that it is similar to the `True Believer > > Syndrome', and also `Cognitive Dissonance', both of which are > > cognitive disfunctions. > > So I have coined the phrase `Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas', to > > describe this condition. > > It only applies to `Eastern Spiritual Seekers', for other people who > > eat meat have no conflict, as it is accepted as part of their > > culture; So no cognitive dissonance arises�����..Tony O'Clery. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Dear Marco, Ramana Maharshi was adamant that meat eating would lead to a rajistic mind. he strongly advocated a satvic diet which would be vergetarian with pulses and milk products. He is a great authority we must take seriously, don't you think? Best regards, Alan --- On Fri, 28/11/08, bluazure <firesong3 wrote: bluazure <firesong3 Re: Turkey Time and cognitive dissonance carnalitas Date: Friday, 28 November, 2008, 3:28 AM Hello all, I have been following the threads for the last few months .And nowenter the group with this response to Tony's thread on Ahimsa . Andit is this ,Eating meat has nothing to do with my true nature ,eatingmeat I will still be as I am ,not eating meat, I will still be as Iam . Is my nature based on a behavior? Am I relying on limited actionsto behave according to some idea about non violence? This Self natureis not dependant on some idea about consuming food , seeing who I amfirst, shows me that I am not somebody relying on some moral code oraction but that I am the heart that is whole and complete .Havingknown who I am,I will eat what I eat and can decide not to eat meatand not worry about what others eat and I can care that other beingsare not treated cruelly and Still be as I am.As Bhagavan says, 'Seeingis being' it is not a practice or idea . When I am,I do not think "NowI am practicing ahimsa, they are not " , there is no commentary aboutahimsa. These are codes and conditions to help ease the mind into quietness sothat the seeker can realize his true nature.They are karmic actionsused so that the mind becomes clear and can inquire.An example is,when the seeker is told that the world is unreal ;this is a device inorder that the seeker enter into an introspective state and inquiredirectly into being. Shankar (As Tony has referred to in another post with his YOU Tubetesting) not only says that the world is real, but that it is unreal.When we superimpose on the undifferentiated Self and make the idea ofa "meat eater " real, thinking that others on the spiritual pathshouldn't be doing this, which is called a measurement or labeling (somewhere I have read that Maya means to measure). You see a meateater and your knowledge of Ahimsa springs up and you think about itin terms of Ahimsa and your knowledge of 'spiritual people' withcognitive dissonance arises.Atma Vichar is not practicing Ahimsa yetnon violence comes in the form of wisdom and shanti which are revealedin Atma Vichar.By the way it is common for Tibetan Buddhist to eat meat and I haveheard that the Dalai Lama's physician advised him to eat meat at sometime.Are they practicing ahimsa? They are mostly loving and generouslykind :)They even wish all the beings in hell peace , I don't see themhaving Cognitive dissonance.It is known that Bhagavan hit Dandi Swamiwith a force so hard that it snapped his walking stick in two, was hepracticing Ahimsa ? Certianly he was trying to break up a fight,Idon't think he thought too much about it afterwards. The thinking inCognitive dissonace is equivilant to thinking about thinking. Directbeingness is without such cares. Prem and Shanti , Marco .., "Tony OClery" <aoclery > wrote:>> Namaste,> > Time for this again I think...Tony> >COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CARNALITAS.> > This is a version of cognitive dissonance that specifically applies> > to spirituality, especially Buddhism and Hinduism and their> > adherents. The Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning for Carnalitas;-> > Sensuality, Unspirituality and Fleshiness.> > In the Eastern Philosophies there is a basic tenet called Ahimsa or> > resistance to the practice of violence;--in other words practice> non-> > violence. It is the essential teaching of the Buddha and all the> > Hindu teachers, Avatars and Yogis. This is why `meat-eating' is not> > practiced by these people.> > However there are many on the `so called' spiritual path, especially> > Westerners, who have a conflict with this. They know and understand> > the teaching on Ahimsa and meat eating but yet ignore it and worse,> > try and rationalize it, with innumerable excuses on why they still> > partake of meat.> >> > Usually with ideas like; `All is one', it doesn't matter what one> > eats and so on. There seems to be a gap between the tenet of non-> > violence and what they consume. They do not seem to connect the> > torture and suffering of animals and what is on their plate.> > Obviously there is some Egoistic desire and habit associated with> > meat eating, which is stronger than their professed spirituality,> > which demands Ahimsa.> > I have studied this condition in spiritual seekers for some years> > and could never understand the `disconnect' .> > I finally decided that it is similar to the `True Believer> > Syndrome', and also `Cognitive Dissonance', both of which are> > cognitive disfunctions.> > So I have coined the phrase `Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas', to> > describe this condition.> > It only applies to `Eastern Spiritual Seekers', for other people who> > eat meat have no conflict, as it is accepted as part of their> > culture; So no cognitive dissonance arises�����..Tony O'Clery.> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Namaste friends, Ramana said also , knew also, that our true nature is beyond the gunas.... who we truly are is beyond Rajas , tamas or sattva. This is the undeniable truth. We are not the body, the gunas, the mind... He has taught, that it may be helpful to a beginner to have a sattvic diet and lifestyle until they are established in Self... but this was instruction to ceratin devotees. Blessings, Soul , Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs wrote: > > Dear Marco, >  > Ramana Maharshi was adamant that meat eating would lead to a rajistic mind. he strongly advocated a satvic diet which would be vergetarian with pulses and milk products. He is a great authority we must take seriously, don't you think? >  > Best regards, >  > Alan > > --- On Fri, 28/11/08, bluazure <firesong3 wrote: > > bluazure <firesong3 > Re: Turkey Time and cognitive dissonance carnalitas > > Friday, 28 November, 2008, 3:28 AM Hello all, > I have been following the threads for the last few months .And now > enter the group with this response to Tony's thread on Ahimsa . And > it is this ,Eating meat has nothing to do with my true nature ,eating > meat I will still be as I am ,not eating meat, I will still be as I > am . Is my nature based on a behavior? Am I relying on limited actions > to behave according to some idea about non violence? This Self nature > is not dependant on some idea about consuming food , seeing who I am > first, shows me that I am not somebody relying on some moral code or > action but that I am the heart that is whole and complete .Having > known who I am,I will eat what I eat and can decide not to eat meat > and not worry about what others eat and I can care that other beings > are not treated cruelly and Still be as I am.As Bhagavan says, 'Seeing > is being' it is not a practice or idea . When I am,I do not think " Now > I am practicing ahimsa, they are not " , there is no commentary about > ahimsa. > > These are codes and conditions to help ease the mind into quietness so > that the seeker can realize his true nature.They are karmic actions > used so that the mind becomes clear and can inquire.An example is, > when the seeker is told that the world is unreal ;this is a device in > order that the seeker enter into an introspective state and inquire > directly into being. > > Shankar (As Tony has referred to in another post with his YOU Tube > testing) not only says that the world is real, but that it is unreal. > When we superimpose on the undifferentiated Self and make the idea of > a " meat eater " real, thinking that others on the spiritual path > shouldn't be doing this, which is called a measurement or labeling > (somewhere I have read that Maya means to measure). You see a meat > eater and your knowledge of Ahimsa springs up and you think about it > in terms of Ahimsa and your knowledge of 'spiritual people' with > cognitive dissonance arises.Atma Vichar is not practicing Ahimsa yet > non violence comes in the form of wisdom and shanti which are revealed > in Atma Vichar. > > By the way it is common for Tibetan Buddhist to eat meat and I have > heard that the Dalai Lama's physician advised him to eat meat at some > time.Are they practicing ahimsa? They are mostly loving and generously > kind :)They even wish all the beings in hell peace , I don't see them > having Cognitive dissonance.It is known that Bhagavan hit Dandi Swami > with a force so hard that it snapped his walking stick in two, was he > practicing Ahimsa ? Certianly he was trying to break up a fight,I > don't think he thought too much about it afterwards. The thinking in > Cognitive dissonace is equivilant to thinking about thinking. Direct > beingness is without such cares. > > Prem and Shanti , > Marco . > > , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@ > wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > Time for this again I think...> > >COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CARNALITAS. > > > This is a version of cognitive dissonance that specifically applies > > > to spirituality, especially Buddhism and Hinduism and their > > > adherents. The Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning for Carnalitas;- > > > Sensuality, Unspirituality and Fleshiness. > > > In the Eastern Philosophies there is a basic tenet called Ahimsa or > > > resistance to the practice of violence;--in other words practice > > non- > > > violence. It is the essential teaching of the Buddha and all the > > > Hindu teachers, Avatars and Yogis. This is why `meat-eating' is not > > > practiced by these people. > > > However there are many on the `so called' spiritual path, especially > > > Westerners, who have a conflict with this. They know and understand > > > the teaching on Ahimsa and meat eating but yet ignore it and worse, > > > try and rationalize it, with innumerable excuses on why they still > > > partake of meat. > > > > > > Usually with ideas like; `All is one', it doesn't matter what one > > > eats and so on. There seems to be a gap between the tenet of non- > > > violence and what they consume. They do not seem to connect the > > > torture and suffering of animals and what is on their plate. > > > Obviously there is some Egoistic desire and habit associated with > > > meat eating, which is stronger than their professed spirituality, > > > which demands Ahimsa. > > > I have studied this condition in spiritual seekers for some years > > > and could never understand the `disconnect' . > > > I finally decided that it is similar to the `True Believer > > > Syndrome', and also `Cognitive Dissonance', both of which are > > > cognitive disfunctions. > > > So I have coined the phrase `Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas', to > > > describe this condition. > > > It only applies to `Eastern Spiritual Seekers', for other people who > > > eat meat have no conflict, as it is accepted as part of their > > > culture; So no cognitive dissonance arises�����..Tony O'Clery. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Namaste' Friends, There is a great misunderstanding of Ahimsa in the Western world that arises out of the translation of Ahimsa as 'non-violence'. And this misunderstanding itself is the source of conflict that is contrary to Ahimsa. a•him•sa (literally: the avoidance of violence - himsa) 'a' means 'avoidance' as a way of being 'without' (in this case without violence). 'himsa' means violence as that which violate natural order (violate means to 'break', 'assault', 'harm', 'disturb') Thus a more accurate translation of Ahimsa is: without violence; and even more accurately: without violating natural order. (This form of misunderstanding is common as Sanskrit words like Advaita are translated to mean 'nonduality' rather than 'without duality', 'without conflict' or 'without separation' - the conflict in the case of 'Advaita' is not as obvious as with 'Ahimsa'). In light of the meaning that Ahimsa means: without violating natural order - actions like the Dalai Lama's physically breaking up a fight are seen to uphold Ahimsa as breaking up the conflict is a means to alllow natural order to be restored. - it also means that there is no conflict in witnessing a tiger attack and kill another animal for its food as this is in keeping with natural order (there would be not comment that the tiger should become a vegetarian and that it is a low form of intelligence etc - there is simply the unfolding of natural order). - and it means there is no need to travel to Northern regions of the planet and preach non-violence and vegetarianism to Inuit folks who subsits mainly on animal flesh because for them this is the natural order. There are many other examples - hopefully the difference between 'non-violence' and 'without violating natural order' is now more clear. Finally, Ramana's direction toward vegetarianism is also appropriate as that is more Sattvic yet as Soul pointed out Ramana understod our true nature as more than the gunas - and he also understood that there are gunas - which means that in the natural order of things there are folks like the Inuit who eat meat without violating the order that is natural for them. In summary Ramana Maharshi and other sages who understood and lived natural order as the way of the heart did not violate natural order when they spoke about and/or promoted Ahimsa (they understand that it is not the intellectual idea of non-violence [actually there is no such thing as non-violence] rather Ahimsa is a heart centred way of being that is attuned with your 'true nature'). Love, James , " souleternalbeing " <souleternalbeing wrote: > > Namaste friends, > > Ramana said also , knew also, that our true nature is beyond the > gunas.... who we truly are is beyond Rajas , tamas or sattva. > > This is the undeniable truth. We are not the body, the gunas, the > mind... > > He has taught, that it may be helpful to a beginner to have a sattvic > diet and lifestyle until they are established in Self... but this was > instruction to ceratin devotees. > > Blessings, > > Soul > > > > , Alan Jacobs > <alanadamsjacobs@> wrote: > > > > Dear Marco, > >  > > Ramana Maharshi was adamant that meat eating would lead to a > rajistic mind. he strongly advocated a satvic diet which would be > vergetarian with pulses and milk products. He is a great authority > we must take seriously, don't you think? > >  > > Best regards, > >  > > Alan > > > > --- On Fri, 28/11/08, bluazure <firesong3@> wrote: > > > > bluazure <firesong3@> > > Re: Turkey Time and > cognitive dissonance carnalitas > > > > Friday, 28 November, 2008, 3:28 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > I have been following the threads for the last few months .And now > > enter the group with this response to Tony's thread on Ahimsa . And > > it is this ,Eating meat has nothing to do with my true > nature ,eating > > meat I will still be as I am ,not eating meat, I will still be as I > > am . Is my nature based on a behavior? Am I relying on limited > actions > > to behave according to some idea about non violence? This Self > nature > > is not dependant on some idea about consuming food , seeing who I am > > first, shows me that I am not somebody relying on some moral code or > > action but that I am the heart that is whole and complete .Having > > known who I am,I will eat what I eat and can decide not to eat meat > > and not worry about what others eat and I can care that other beings > > are not treated cruelly and Still be as I am.As Bhagavan > says, 'Seeing > > is being' it is not a practice or idea . When I am,I do not > think " Now > > I am practicing ahimsa, they are not " , there is no commentary > about > > ahimsa. > > > > These are codes and conditions to help ease the mind into quietness > so > > that the seeker can realize his true nature.They are karmic actions > > used so that the mind becomes clear and can inquire.An example is, > > when the seeker is told that the world is unreal ;this is a device > in > > order that the seeker enter into an introspective state and inquire > > directly into being. > > > > Shankar (As Tony has referred to in another post with his YOU Tube > > testing) not only says that the world is real, but that it is > unreal. > > When we superimpose on the undifferentiated Self and make the idea > of > > a " meat eater " real, thinking that others on the spiritual path > > shouldn't be doing this, which is called a measurement or labeling > > (somewhere I have read that Maya means to measure). You see a meat > > eater and your knowledge of Ahimsa springs up and you think about it > > in terms of Ahimsa and your knowledge of 'spiritual people' with > > cognitive dissonance arises.Atma Vichar is not practicing Ahimsa yet > > non violence comes in the form of wisdom and shanti which are > revealed > > in Atma Vichar. > > > > By the way it is common for Tibetan Buddhist to eat meat and I have > > heard that the Dalai Lama's physician advised him to eat meat at > some > > time.Are they practicing ahimsa? They are mostly loving and > generously > > kind :)They even wish all the beings in hell peace , I don't see > them > > having Cognitive dissonance.It is known that Bhagavan hit Dandi > Swami > > with a force so hard that it snapped his walking stick in two, was > he > > practicing Ahimsa ? Certianly he was trying to break up a fight,I > > don't think he thought too much about it afterwards. The thinking in > > Cognitive dissonace is equivilant to thinking about thinking. Direct > > beingness is without such cares. > > > > Prem and Shanti , > > Marco . > > > > , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@ > > wrote: > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Time for this again I think...> > > >COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CARNALITAS. > > > > This is a version of cognitive dissonance that specifically > applies > > > > to spirituality, especially Buddhism and Hinduism and their > > > > adherents. The Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning for > Carnalitas;- > > > > Sensuality, Unspirituality and Fleshiness. > > > > In the Eastern Philosophies there is a basic tenet called > Ahimsa or > > > > resistance to the practice of violence;--in other words practice > > > non- > > > > violence. It is the essential teaching of the Buddha and all the > > > > Hindu teachers, Avatars and Yogis. This is why `meat-eating' is > not > > > > practiced by these people. > > > > However there are many on the `so called' spiritual path, > especially > > > > Westerners, who have a conflict with this. They know and > understand > > > > the teaching on Ahimsa and meat eating but yet ignore it and > worse, > > > > try and rationalize it, with innumerable excuses on why they > still > > > > partake of meat. > > > > > > > > Usually with ideas like; `All is one', it doesn't matter what > one > > > > eats and so on. There seems to be a gap between the tenet of > non- > > > > violence and what they consume. They do not seem to connect the > > > > torture and suffering of animals and what is on their plate. > > > > Obviously there is some Egoistic desire and habit associated > with > > > > meat eating, which is stronger than their professed > spirituality, > > > > which demands Ahimsa. > > > > I have studied this condition in spiritual seekers for some > years > > > > and could never understand the `disconnect' . > > > > I finally decided that it is similar to the `True Believer > > > > Syndrome', and also `Cognitive Dissonance', both of which are > > > > cognitive disfunctions. > > > > So I have coined the phrase `Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas', > to > > > > describe this condition. > > > > It only applies to `Eastern Spiritual Seekers', for other > people who > > > > eat meat have no conflict, as it is accepted as part of their > > > > culture; So no cognitive dissonance > arises�����..Tony O'Clery. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 , " James Traverse " <nisarga111 wrote: > > Namaste' Friends, > > There is a great misunderstanding of Ahimsa in the Western world that > arises out of the translation of Ahimsa as 'non-violence'. And this > misunderstanding itself is the source of conflict that is contrary to > Ahimsa. > > a•him•sa (literally: the avoidance of violence - himsa) > > 'a' means 'avoidance' as a way of being 'without' (in this case > without violence). > > 'himsa' means violence as that which violate natural order (violate > means to 'break', 'assault', 'harm', 'disturb') > > Thus a more accurate translation of Ahimsa is: without violence; and > even more accurately: without violating natural order. > > (This form of misunderstanding is common as Sanskrit words like > Advaita are translated to mean 'nonduality' rather than 'without > duality', 'without conflict' or 'without separation' - the conflict in > the case of 'Advaita' is not as obvious as with 'Ahimsa'). > > In light of the meaning that Ahimsa means: without violating natural > order > > - actions like the Dalai Lama's physically breaking up a fight are > seen to uphold Ahimsa as breaking up the conflict is a means to alllow > natural order to be restored. > > - it also means that there is no conflict in witnessing a tiger attack > and kill another animal for its food as this is in keeping with > natural order (there would be not comment that the tiger should become > a vegetarian and that it is a low form of intelligence etc - there is > simply the unfolding of natural order). > > - and it means there is no need to travel to Northern regions of the > planet and preach non-violence and vegetarianism to Inuit folks who > subsits mainly on animal flesh because for them this is the natural order. > > There are many other examples - hopefully the difference between > 'non-violence' and 'without violating natural order' is now more clear. > > Finally, Ramana's direction toward vegetarianism is also appropriate > as that is more Sattvic yet as Soul pointed out Ramana understod our > true nature as more than the gunas - and he also understood that there > are gunas - which means that in the natural order of things there are > folks like the Inuit who eat meat without violating the order that is > natural for them. > > In summary Ramana Maharshi and other sages who understood and lived > natural order as the way of the heart did not violate natural order > when they spoke about and/or promoted Ahimsa (they understand that it > is not the intellectual idea of non-violence [actually there is no > such thing as non-violence] rather Ahimsa is a heart centred way of > being that is attuned with your 'true nature'). > > Love, > James Namaste, James I agree that a-himsa or 'resistance to harm', can actually involve violence to defend. Now with the dispensation for the Inuit--it is only a temporary dispensation as meat eating for the entire human population was. However now the Inuit can go to the store and supermarket just like anybody else and the hunter gatherer lifestyle is long gone as a necessesity....as it is for all humans.....Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 , " bluazure " <firesong3 wrote: > > Hello all, > I have been following the threads for the last few months .And now > enter the group with this response to Tony's thread on Ahimsa . And > it is this ,Eating meat has nothing to do with my true nature ,eating > meat I will still be as I am ,not eating meat, I will still be as I > am . Is my nature based on a behavior? Am I relying on limited actions > to behave according to some idea about non violence? This Self nature > is not dependant on some idea about consuming food , seeing who I am > first, shows me that I am not somebody relying on some moral code or > action but that I am the heart that is whole and complete .Having > known who I am,I will eat what I eat and can decide not to eat meat > and not worry about what others eat and I can care that other beings > are not treated cruelly and Still be as I am.As Bhagavan says, 'Seeing > is being' it is not a practice or idea . When I am,I do not think " Now > I am practicing ahimsa, they are not " , there is no commentary about > ahimsa. > > These are codes and conditions to help ease the mind into quietness so > that the seeker can realize his true nature.They are karmic actions > used so that the mind becomes clear and can inquire.An example is, > when the seeker is told that the world is unreal ;this is a device in > order that the seeker enter into an introspective state and inquire > directly into being. > > Shankar (As Tony has referred to in another post with his YOU Tube > testing) not only says that the world is real, but that it is unreal. > When we superimpose on the undifferentiated Self and make the idea of > a " meat eater " real, thinking that others on the spiritual path > shouldn't be doing this, which is called a measurement or labeling > (somewhere I have read that Maya means to measure). You see a meat > eater and your knowledge of Ahimsa springs up and you think about it > in terms of Ahimsa and your knowledge of 'spiritual people' with > cognitive dissonance arises.Atma Vichar is not practicing Ahimsa yet > non violence comes in the form of wisdom and shanti which are revealed > in Atma Vichar. > > By the way it is common for Tibetan Buddhist to eat meat and I have > heard that the Dalai Lama's physician advised him to eat meat at some > time.Are they practicing ahimsa? They are mostly loving and generously > kind :)They even wish all the beings in hell peace , I don't see them > having Cognitive dissonance.It is known that Bhagavan hit Dandi Swami > with a force so hard that it snapped his walking stick in two, was he > practicing Ahimsa ? Certianly he was trying to break up a fight,I > don't think he thought too much about it afterwards. The thinking in > Cognitive dissonace is equivilant to thinking about thinking. Direct > beingness is without such cares. > > Prem and Shanti , > Marco . Namaste, Is not this whole post just an example of intellectual verbose cognitive dissonanc carnalitas??????????If there were mental olympics this would be in the top gymnast class. It is the level of awareness that is effected by meat eating attitudes or non discrimination or cognitive dissonance carnalitas. Humans are different from other animals in that their natural evolution was interfered with in some way thousands of years ago and 'sub-humans' and 'mixed hominids' were mixed again to produce the 'human being' in at time of almost complete depopulation on the planet. This has the effect of leaving modern humans with more animal traits than as if there had been a natural evolution. The previous life of every human is in their samskaras any way including previous animal lives. It is these samskaras or intstinctive drives that interfere with the development of Daya or compassion, and hence prevent 'realisation'. They are an impediment accompanied with cognitive dissonance carnalitas..........Humans are 1. animal. 2. aspiring human.3 human. 4.'divine human'..Intelligence and IQ are not related to this only the state of awareness in the vijnanamayakosa...........Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Poor carrots! , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Namaste, > > Time for this again I think...> >COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CARNALITAS. > > This is a version of cognitive dissonance that specifically applies > > to spirituality, especially Buddhism and Hinduism and their > > adherents. The Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning for Carnalitas;- > > Sensuality, Unspirituality and Fleshiness. > > In the Eastern Philosophies there is a basic tenet called Ahimsa or > > resistance to the practice of violence;--in other words practice > non- > > violence. It is the essential teaching of the Buddha and all the > > Hindu teachers, Avatars and Yogis. This is why `meat-eating' is not > > practiced by these people. > > However there are many on the `so called' spiritual path, especially > > Westerners, who have a conflict with this. They know and understand > > the teaching on Ahimsa and meat eating but yet ignore it and worse, > > try and rationalize it, with innumerable excuses on why they still > > partake of meat. > > > > Usually with ideas like; `All is one', it doesn't matter what one > > eats and so on. There seems to be a gap between the tenet of non- > > violence and what they consume. They do not seem to connect the > > torture and suffering of animals and what is on their plate. > > Obviously there is some Egoistic desire and habit associated with > > meat eating, which is stronger than their professed spirituality, > > which demands Ahimsa. > > I have studied this condition in spiritual seekers for some years > > and could never understand the `disconnect'. > > I finally decided that it is similar to the `True Believer > > Syndrome', and also `Cognitive Dissonance', both of which are > > cognitive disfunctions. > > So I have coined the phrase `Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas', to > > describe this condition. > > It only applies to `Eastern Spiritual Seekers', for other people who > > eat meat have no conflict, as it is accepted as part of their > > culture; So no cognitive dissonance arises……………..Tony O'Clery. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 , " souleternalbeing " <souleternalbeing wrote: > > > Poor carrots! > > Namaste, Carrots don't have a developed nervous system or subtle mind...That is the weakest shot of cognitive dissonance carnalitas I've seen--You win the prize as top mental gymnast.........Tony. > > , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > Time for this again I think...> > >COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CARNALITAS. > > > This is a version of cognitive dissonance that specifically > applies > > > to spirituality, especially Buddhism and Hinduism and their > > > adherents. The Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning for > Carnalitas;- > > > Sensuality, Unspirituality and Fleshiness. > > > In the Eastern Philosophies there is a basic tenet called Ahimsa > or > > > resistance to the practice of violence;--in other words practice > > non- > > > violence. It is the essential teaching of the Buddha and all the > > > Hindu teachers, Avatars and Yogis. This is why `meat-eating' is > not > > > practiced by these people. > > > However there are many on the `so called' spiritual path, > especially > > > Westerners, who have a conflict with this. They know and > understand > > > the teaching on Ahimsa and meat eating but yet ignore it and > worse, > > > try and rationalize it, with innumerable excuses on why they still > > > partake of meat. > > > > > > Usually with ideas like; `All is one', it doesn't matter what one > > > eats and so on. There seems to be a gap between the tenet of non- > > > violence and what they consume. They do not seem to connect the > > > torture and suffering of animals and what is on their plate. > > > Obviously there is some Egoistic desire and habit associated with > > > meat eating, which is stronger than their professed spirituality, > > > which demands Ahimsa. > > > I have studied this condition in spiritual seekers for some years > > > and could never understand the `disconnect'. > > > I finally decided that it is similar to the `True Believer > > > Syndrome', and also `Cognitive Dissonance', both of which are > > > cognitive disfunctions. > > > So I have coined the phrase `Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas', to > > > describe this condition. > > > It only applies to `Eastern Spiritual Seekers', for other people > who > > > eat meat have no conflict, as it is accepted as part of their > > > culture; So no cognitive dissonance arises……………..Tony O'Clery. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > , " James Traverse " > <nisarga111@> wrote: > > > > Namaste' Friends, > > > > There is a great misunderstanding of Ahimsa in the Western world > that > > arises out of the translation of Ahimsa as 'non-violence'. And this > > misunderstanding itself is the source of conflict that is contrary > to > > Ahimsa. > > > > a•him•sa (literally: the avoidance of violence - himsa) > > > > 'a' means 'avoidance' as a way of being 'without' (in this case > > without violence). > > > > 'himsa' means violence as that which violate natural order (violate > > means to 'break', 'assault', 'harm', 'disturb') > > > > Thus a more accurate translation of Ahimsa is: without violence; and > > even more accurately: without violating natural order. > > > > (This form of misunderstanding is common as Sanskrit words like > > Advaita are translated to mean 'nonduality' rather than 'without > > duality', 'without conflict' or 'without separation' - the conflict > in > > the case of 'Advaita' is not as obvious as with 'Ahimsa'). > > > > In light of the meaning that Ahimsa means: without violating natural > > order > > > > - actions like the Dalai Lama's physically breaking up a fight are > > seen to uphold Ahimsa as breaking up the conflict is a means to > alllow > > natural order to be restored. > > > > - it also means that there is no conflict in witnessing a tiger > attack > > and kill another animal for its food as this is in keeping with > > natural order (there would be not comment that the tiger should > become > > a vegetarian and that it is a low form of intelligence etc - there > is > > simply the unfolding of natural order). > > > > - and it means there is no need to travel to Northern regions of the > > planet and preach non-violence and vegetarianism to Inuit folks who > > subsits mainly on animal flesh because for them this is the natural > order. > > > > There are many other examples - hopefully the difference between > > 'non-violence' and 'without violating natural order' is now more > clear. > > > > Finally, Ramana's direction toward vegetarianism is also appropriate > > as that is more Sattvic yet as Soul pointed out Ramana understod our > > true nature as more than the gunas - and he also understood that > there > > are gunas - which means that in the natural order of things there > are > > folks like the Inuit who eat meat without violating the order that > is > > natural for them. > > > > In summary Ramana Maharshi and other sages who understood and lived > > natural order as the way of the heart did not violate natural order > > when they spoke about and/or promoted Ahimsa (they understand that > it > > is not the intellectual idea of non-violence [actually there is no > > such thing as non-violence] rather Ahimsa is a heart centred way of > > being that is attuned with your 'true nature'). > > > > Love, > > James > > Namaste, > > James I agree that a-himsa or 'resistance to harm', can actually > involve violence to defend. > > Now with the dispensation for the Inuit--it is only a temporary > dispensation as meat eating for the entire human population was. > However now the Inuit can go to the store and supermarket just like > anybody else and the hunter gatherer lifestyle is long gone as a > necessesity....as it is for all humans.....Cheers Tony. > Hi Tony, I feel that you got some of what I intended to convey. In addition to clarifying what Ahimsa means, the examples I gave are examples of what Ahimsa is and is not: 1) the opposite always contains the opposite of itself; this means that Ahimsa which means 'without violating natural order' does not have any violence (thus it does not use violence to defend or promote itself). This means that the example of the Dalai Lama physically intervening to break up a fight is not a violent act as his action is simply the action that is in keeping with natural order and therefore is Ahimsa. 2) my other point is that practice of Ahimsa honours Ahimsa - in other words one practices Ahimsa while promoting Ahimsa and the best way to promote it is to be a living example of it... Ramana Maharshi's way of being is an excellent example of this. Love, James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Ok... That prize is welcome here.. In the joy of humor... Arunachala Siva! Soul , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > , " souleternalbeing " > <souleternalbeing@> wrote: > > > > > > Poor carrots! > > > > > > Namaste, > > Carrots don't have a developed nervous system or subtle mind...That > is the weakest shot of cognitive dissonance carnalitas I've seen-- You > win the prize as top mental gymnast.........Tony. > > > > > , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Time for this again I think...> > > >COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CARNALITAS. > > > > This is a version of cognitive dissonance that specifically > > applies > > > > to spirituality, especially Buddhism and Hinduism and their > > > > adherents. The Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning for > > Carnalitas;- > > > > Sensuality, Unspirituality and Fleshiness. > > > > In the Eastern Philosophies there is a basic tenet called > Ahimsa > > or > > > > resistance to the practice of violence;--in other words practice > > > non- > > > > violence. It is the essential teaching of the Buddha and all the > > > > Hindu teachers, Avatars and Yogis. This is why `meat-eating' is > > not > > > > practiced by these people. > > > > However there are many on the `so called' spiritual path, > > especially > > > > Westerners, who have a conflict with this. They know and > > understand > > > > the teaching on Ahimsa and meat eating but yet ignore it and > > worse, > > > > try and rationalize it, with innumerable excuses on why they > still > > > > partake of meat. > > > > > > > > Usually with ideas like; `All is one', it doesn't matter what > one > > > > eats and so on. There seems to be a gap between the tenet of > non- > > > > violence and what they consume. They do not seem to connect the > > > > torture and suffering of animals and what is on their plate. > > > > Obviously there is some Egoistic desire and habit associated > with > > > > meat eating, which is stronger than their professed > spirituality, > > > > which demands Ahimsa. > > > > I have studied this condition in spiritual seekers for some > years > > > > and could never understand the `disconnect'. > > > > I finally decided that it is similar to the `True Believer > > > > Syndrome', and also `Cognitive Dissonance', both of which are > > > > cognitive disfunctions. > > > > So I have coined the phrase `Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas', > to > > > > describe this condition. > > > > It only applies to `Eastern Spiritual Seekers', for other > people > > who > > > > eat meat have no conflict, as it is accepted as part of their > > > > culture; So no cognitive dissonance arises……………..Tony O'Clery. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Dear Tony and satsang friends, I also wish to add that there is no conflict whatsoever here in the fact that at times fish and eggs are eaten . As I wrote earlier, Ramana taught, and it is written in many scriptures as it is truth , that our true nature is beyond the body/mind ...beyond the gunas. Beyond the Gunas. The body eating fish is not who I am, so there is no conflict at all with freedom. There is no conflict at all, and I wonder why , Tony, you project that there should be or there is within other people. How do you know this is true for everyone? What I find is barrier to true freedom is judgement and ill will towards others because of what they eat, and projections that they may have a so called " condition " . But if one wants to spend thier time , which could be well spent on Self-Inquiry, judging others, of course they are free to do so. One thing I love about many satsang teachers I have come across, is they do actually eat meat, drink coca-cola or alcohol even... and are totally free. They recognize thier own true divinity, thier own true nature beyond the body/mind. The body mind may continue to do what it has done in the past,or not, as it is seen to merely be an actor in this play called 'Life'. True freedom is beyond 'concepts' and doesn't look a certain way.It can look any way and does. Who is one to say whether one is free or not, because of what they eat? A drunk in the park could be a master. As I pointed out earlier , a Sattvic diet was sometimes encouraged to certain devotees by Ramana Maharishi, as this would possibly help them as they establish in thier true nature. This is a reason why many advise a sattvic diet, not necessarily so that the ego feels it is 'non-violent' and a 'good-person', and 'others' are bad. Separation. If it is deeply felt that one wishes no harm to animals, then it is fine to abstain from meat eating. But this is no reflection of ones true nature. Blessings and so much love to all in this group, Soul , " souleternalbeing " <souleternalbeing wrote: > > Ok... > > That prize is welcome here.. > > In the joy of humor... > > Arunachala Siva! > > Soul > > > > , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > wrote: > > > > , " souleternalbeing " > > <souleternalbeing@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Poor carrots! > > > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > Carrots don't have a developed nervous system or subtle mind...That > > is the weakest shot of cognitive dissonance carnalitas I've seen-- > You > > win the prize as top mental gymnast.........Tony. > > > > > > > > , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Namaste, > > > > > > > > Time for this again I think...> > > > >COGNITIVE DISSONANCE CARNALITAS. > > > > > This is a version of cognitive dissonance that specifically > > > applies > > > > > to spirituality, especially Buddhism and Hinduism and their > > > > > adherents. The Oxford Dictionary gives this meaning for > > > Carnalitas;- > > > > > Sensuality, Unspirituality and Fleshiness. > > > > > In the Eastern Philosophies there is a basic tenet called > > Ahimsa > > > or > > > > > resistance to the practice of violence;--in other words > practice > > > > non- > > > > > violence. It is the essential teaching of the Buddha and all > the > > > > > Hindu teachers, Avatars and Yogis. This is why `meat- eating' > is > > > not > > > > > practiced by these people. > > > > > However there are many on the `so called' spiritual path, > > > especially > > > > > Westerners, who have a conflict with this. They know and > > > understand > > > > > the teaching on Ahimsa and meat eating but yet ignore it and > > > worse, > > > > > try and rationalize it, with innumerable excuses on why they > > still > > > > > partake of meat. > > > > > > > > > > Usually with ideas like; `All is one', it doesn't matter what > > one > > > > > eats and so on. There seems to be a gap between the tenet of > > non- > > > > > violence and what they consume. They do not seem to connect > the > > > > > torture and suffering of animals and what is on their plate. > > > > > Obviously there is some Egoistic desire and habit associated > > with > > > > > meat eating, which is stronger than their professed > > spirituality, > > > > > which demands Ahimsa. > > > > > I have studied this condition in spiritual seekers for some > > years > > > > > and could never understand the `disconnect'. > > > > > I finally decided that it is similar to the `True Believer > > > > > Syndrome', and also `Cognitive Dissonance', both of which are > > > > > cognitive disfunctions. > > > > > So I have coined the phrase `Cognitive Dissonance > Carnalitas', > > to > > > > > describe this condition. > > > > > It only applies to `Eastern Spiritual Seekers', for other > > people > > > who > > > > > eat meat have no conflict, as it is accepted as part of their > > > > > culture; So no cognitive dissonance arises……………..O'Clery. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 It seems that there are a few others who would like to share their opinions on some aspects of this subject... In today's news... http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-odd/20081201/ODD.Deer.Attacks.Hunter/ Eyes...Posted on my website a few year ago...hope all the links work OK. BTW, some of these links lead to websites which contain graphic photos... http://www.omshaantih.com/Ramana/Open%20Your%20Eyes.htm And here is a link to numerous stories of Ramana Maharshi's love for animals... http://www.omshaantih.com/Ramana/Animals.htm In His service, Joyce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 Dear Joyce, Thanks for the sweet article about Ramana Maharishi's love for animals.....a love that I share and I also love looking into the eyes of animals, even insects at times. I even feel the consciousness in plants and trees.... in the air we breath too... all is Consciousness...our very own Self. Namaste, Soul , " Joyce " <shaantih wrote: > > It seems that there are a few others who would like to share their opinions on some > aspects of this subject... > > In today's news... > > http://www.comcast.net/articles/news- odd/20081201/ODD.Deer.Attacks.Hunter/ > > Eyes...Posted on my website a few year ago...hope all the links work OK. > BTW, some of these links lead to websites which contain graphic photos... > > http://www.omshaantih.com/Ramana/Open%20Your%20Eyes.htm > > > And here is a link to numerous stories of Ramana Maharshi's love for animals... > > http://www.omshaantih.com/Ramana/Animals.htm > > > In His service, > > > > Joyce > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.