It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
You know what!. I will apologise for any offense I have caused you! Huge back down for me I know & don't ask why it came so easily. it's usually like pulling teeth with me! I just say sorry!
The eastern systems usually have no creator-god; no monoteistic god; hierarchy below practise; individualistic; and the aim is a personal transmutation.
Abramic religions have a 'boss' at the top, who has total power; hierarchy, doctrine and ritual above practise; run on collective basis and the aim is a passive recieving of external divine benefits (grace etc).
So when doctrines contains open commands of violence and the system is saturated by power-hierarchy thinking, you'll have to deny the whole branch of psychological studies on this, by denying the effect on those exposed to it. This is valid for indoctrination-systems as Hirler-jugend, Mao's red cadres, the cult around Stalin and ofcourse children from extremist-christian and -moslem families.
In all respect; aren't you taking some points a bit far from a wish of demonstrating your opinion correct (as an exception from my often grumpy attitudes, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you). The consequences of your opinion would be, that there is no such thing as social manipulation/engineering. That people 'choose', independent of indoctrination, brainwashing etc.
I ofcourse agree with you (I take it?), that an ideal would be to let people make their own decissions, and as you seem to be both knowledgable and reasonable, I have some problems understanding your polarized attitude on this special point. I have to ask: Are you defending an Abramic position? Under pretension of a 'neutral' position.
Quote: "Even passive receiving of Divine grace is something practiced in the East as Bhakti or a number of other names."
True. But Bhakti (as devotion) isn't the ultimate esoteric aim, and is not identical with compassion, which comes as a 'fringe benfit' from enlightenment.
Eventually it boils down to 'truth', and here I have arrived to the same conclusion as Jain: We have to settle for approximative 'truth' (a difficult position for my personal character, I would love to have absolutes).
An approximate 'truth' is a map of one specific and defined area (of the territory). The esoteric tries to enlarge this area and, in some cases, make a suitable map of it.
Quote: "Ever since the sixties it seems the world is going in a downward spiral"
I'm a very enthusiastic conspiracy buff, except that I don't believe in most of it. But it doesn't take much to believe in the reality of orchestrations, type Machiavellian, where polarizations are fabricated to keep the herd from being interested in the real issues.
The issues are so absurd from a modern perspective, that only the very bewildered can find any meaning in it. So soon we'll see new sets of 'enemies' emerge.
In practise I prefer an active inclusive position in the middle. But it's true, that this makes almost everyone your opponent in a world of black/white.
text...[/ex] Last bracket was for it not to work you should use ] that one as well.