Is Conflict an Inherent Factor of Religion?

Conflict: Rishi S

by Anagarika Eddie Rock

One of the most difficult areas to get past in human relations is the idea that “my” religion or ideal is Truth and yours isn’t. When someone says to you that your beliefs are all wet compared to his or hers, how does that make you feel? Historically, it has made people feel so bad that they have killed each other. This is not good.

If only there was a way where we could sincerely say to those who are not of our faith, “You’re okay, even if you do not believe our way.” Unless we find a way to honestly and openly do that, unless we as a nation find a way to say to other countries that they are okay just as they are developing, (as if we didn’t have our problems as a young nation), then we will be in constant conflict.

If, for a moment, we can leave aside threatening and incendiary remarks, such as, “If you don’t become enlightened, you will be reborn into suffering forever,” “Unless you accept Jesus as your savior, you will go to hell,” and “Allah is the only God, accept him or else,” along with all the other claims of various religions (and the numerous branches of the various religions that separate us further, i.e., Catholic and Baptist in the Christian faith), what is there left to talk about?

If we have nothing left to talk about, then of course religion can justifiably be termed a vehicle of separation; something that has caused violence in the past and continues to be a destructive force in the present.

Some might say that their beliefs and principles are more important than any conflict, and that they are ready and willing to die for them. Okay, passion is an important factor, and if their religion or ideal sanctifies conversion by force, then one would be justified in their mind. I posit, however, that in the deep tentacles of all religions lies a universal love for all mankind, regardless of beliefs, and that conversion by force comes from man‘s ego.

In reality, we usually tolerate beliefs other than our own and generally smile and make nice to people of other faiths. But down deep, if we think that they are misguided and that we should save them, or resent the fact that they can’t see the light and consider them inferior to ourselves, then we are two-faced.

Perhaps better than becoming two-faced is having it out with them; arguing about our religions until we are blue in the face, totally exhausted, and ready to strangle each other. At least we would be honest.

In my articles, I try to promote principles that apply to all religions regardless of beliefs. I do this in order to advance past narrow opinions and toward more universal love and respect for each other. I’m not always successful.

I try to see the end product of what a particular religion produces regarding the type of people that result. Are they only nice in a playacting way, closet bigots, or are they genuinely interested in others well being, regardless of the others beliefs?

I can’t say that one way or the other is right or Truth, but I can say, as I look back at history, that one way promotes peace and the other conflict. Again, if conflict is your cup of tea, then I can’t say that you are wrong, but I can say that conflict will create suffering for yourself and others. Also, I can safely, I believe, say that peace promotes ease and joy for yourself and others. Just look at a family in conflict compared to a family in peace. To playact peace is to pretend to be peaceful around your peers but scream at your kids or husband in Wal-Mart! This is also being two-faced.

What it all boils down to is whether or not strong beliefs are worth conflict. If you say yes, then your life will be in conflict. You can’t have conflict with those outside of your immediate group without eventually having conflict within your group. It’s never an outside influence that brings up conflict, conflict is already planted in your mind just looking for a target, and when the outside targets aren’t there, the sharks eat themselves.

The question is; do you want to change your mind from one of conflict to one of peace? Don’t answer too quickly; many people prefer conflict. Conflict, win or lose, boosts the ego and makes one feel that they are alive. Peace, on the other hand does not increase ego or support the notion of a person separate from everyone else.

In my articles, I mention ego or self all the time, because ego, not religion or ideals per se, is the central reason for our internal and external conflicts. The idea of “me.”

So how can you change your state of mind of conflict? Can you keep your strong beliefs and resolve the conflict in yourself? That would be the best of both worlds.

I believe that we can do that, it‘s just a matter of calming down an ego that we have created and now must constantly shore up. This creates the fundamental conflict within ourselves, and has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, but everything to do with how we get along with ourselves, our group, and fellow human beings.

If ever there would be a universal religion, it would work toward resolving this problem of conflict within ourselves. Regardless of what we believe or what books we follow, until we understand ourselves and how we interact with that little person inside our heads, all of our actions and ideas will be skewed.

But once we know ourselves and how we operate, we can then believe as we choose, while at the same time understanding and accepting the rest of humanity regardless of their beliefs, because we will know that we are all fundamentally the same.

Anagarika eddie is a meditation teacher at the Dhammabucha Rocksprings Meditation Retreat Sanctuary www.dhammarocksprings.org and author of A Year to Enlightenment. His 30 years of meditation experience has taken him across four continents including two stopovers in Thailand where he practiced in the remote northeast forests as an ordained Thervada Buddhist monk.

He lived at Wat Pah Nanachat under Ajahn Chah, at Wat Pah Baan Taad under Ajahn Maha Boowa, and at Wat Pah Daan Wi Weg under Ajahn Tui. He had been a postulant at Shasta Abbey, a Zen Buddhist monastery in northern California under Roshi Kennett; and a Theravada Buddhist anagarika at both Amaravati Monastery in the UK and Bodhinyanarama Monastery in New Zealand, both under Ajahn Sumedho. The author has meditated with the Korean Master Sueng Sahn Sunim; with Bhante Gunaratana at the Bhavana Society in West Virginia; and with the Tibetan Master Trungpa Rinpoche in Boulder, Colorado. He has also practiced at the Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Massachusetts, and the Zen Center in San Francisco. 

Article Source: Amazines.com

Dawkins’ Dilemmas Deluded or not deluded? — That is the question!

Professor Richard Dawkins - Photo Credit: Alex Folkes/Fishnik Photography, originally uploaded by Liberal Democrats

Author: Michael Austin

My big concern is to look at the foundations of our thinking, because all too often we accept it without thinking! And one of the very interesting things this lets us do is to explore some of the assumptions made about reason itself. This in turn highlights some of the deep dilemmas in Richard Dawkins’ thinking.

I suggest it is fair to say that in The God Delusion Richard Dawkins presents his atheism as a vehement protest against theism. If ‘atheism’ refers to the belief system that denies the existence of the living God of biblical revelation, any reading of his book quickly shows that Dawkins’ atheism is focused. And it is focused on what he most dislikes – biblical Christianity.

Something deep is going on here – Dawkins’ atheism is on the horns of a giant dilemma that he may not readily acknowledge. That when he works to deny theism he assumes the legitimacy of his reason, either without knowing or admitting that it flows directly from the foundational beliefs of biblical theism. A closer look shows that Richard Dawkins’ arguments for atheism – ‘borrow’ is not too strong – their apparent legitimacy from the position it attacks. Dawkins’ atheism defines itself in terms of the theism that it denies.

Atheism is no ordinary sort of belief! It is unable to advance its own independent vision of reality; and instead must always frame its position in terms of the one it denies. Atheism cannot stand-alone, and while it claims to be a final reference point, always sustains itself from its central denial. Atheism must always be the arch-opponent of theism!

You don’t need to be an astute observer of human nature to see that Dawkins’ vitriolic antagonism towards theism is inclined to be obsessive. Perhaps he knows that as an atheist he has no final basis for the validity of his own reason, and ultimately he cannot escape being self-contradictory. Dawkins needs an understandable reality, borrowed from theism in order to deny theism.

When an atheist like Dawkins says that his capacity for reasoned thinking is grounded in chemistry, he jumps way beyond the remit of chemistry in trying to deny theism. Can the microbiology of his brain cells offer evidence to support atheism? Does non-material information just conveniently drop out of whirling molecules? My answer is, ‘No, they don’t’.

There is another very simple explanation for this conundrum. Dawkins is a man in God’s world, who breathes theistic air and who uses the validity of reason that is inherent in his humanity.

But Dawkins knows that if he is going to deny theism, he must reverse all he knows about God and turn it into denials. So, it’s not surprising to see why he gets so passionate about trying to demolish theism. And he must work hard, trying to block out all of the light that shines in God’s wonderful world, including the light in his own mind and conscience.

Atheism is a leaky vessel, and Dawkins has his work cut out in trying man all the pumps and stop up all the fast-leaking holes. But in spite of which, Dawkins still loves life because so much of it is full of the goodness and wisdom of God. Atheists see it everywhere – in their wonder at the marvels of creation, in their joy of friendship and family, and in their strong, one might nearly say, ‘absolute’ preference of honesty, loyalty, to be valued, and understood by others. Atheists breathe God’s air, take the gifts for granted, and somehow learn to survive with the tensions and dark dilemmas.

Deep down, does Dawkins show us a compelling case that atheism is utterly reasonable? Think it through with him and soon most sensible people will cut free from their pernicious nonsense and begin to enjoy the exhilarating air of atheism’s pure reasonableness. Mind you, that’s not his style, and I doubt whether Dawkins is out to convert people to atheism on the basis of its utter reasonableness.

Indeed, from the way Dawkins writes, there is something still deeper going on. He goes for the jugular, and calls the people he hopes to reason with, ‘faith-heads’ and ‘wingnuts’ suffering from ‘a pernicious delusion.’ Is this his last resort at shock treatment before the eminent doctor admits that neo-Darwinian atheism isn’t the wonderful panacea for all the world’s ills that his dreams have cherished?

Dawkins gives away his serious dilemma about the ultimate Identity when he dismisses God as a ‘figment’ and then heaps his invective against Christian theism. Do people usually get so superheated about ‘figments of the imagination’ that don’t fit their worldview?

Besides, does Dawkins offer a plausible reason for such an awesome reality being here in the first place? In the final analysis, Dawkins shows a marked hostility towards the utter realism of the historic Christian position. Do his arguments rationally demolish biblical theism, and sustain atheism, as something you could anchor your thinking upon to make sense of reality? No, they merely tell us he prefers to deny theism, and call it science. Well, which is it to be – science or philosophy? Dawkins is never quite sure.

About the Author:

Michael Austin is a Christian writer, apologist & Gospel worker – he currently holds a Masters Degree in theology & has recently completed a PhD.

Michael Austin is the author of a number of published works in the battle for reason & sound thinking in the wake of postmodernism. His life experience has also covered a variety of other fields – with a background as a Research & development engineer he has a strong regard for science but believes it always demonstrates the greatness of God in creation.

He is also an inventor & mentioned on a number of patents making a contribution to medical science – his work includes improvements & developments in stents – small devices inserted as permanent implants by less invasive surgical techniques – mainly related to a US multi-national Company.

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Dawkins’ Dilemmas Deluded or not deluded? — That is the question!

The Bhagavad Gita: Teachings and Message

As it Is: brewingluminous / Jeremy

Author: Bhushan Manchanda

The Bhagavad Gita , the “Song of God” is one of the most important Hindu scriptures. It is revered as a sacred scripture of Hinduism, and considered as one of the most important philosophical classics of the world.The Bhagavad Gita comprises 700 verses, and is a part of the Mahabharata The teacher of the Bhagavad Gita is Krishna Who is revered by Hindus as a manifestation of the Lord Himself,and is referred to within as the Bhagavan—the Divine One. The Bhagavad Gita is commonly referred to as the Gita for short.

The content of the Gita is the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna taking place on the battlefield before the start of the Kurukshetra War. Responding to Arjuna’s confusion and moral dilemma about fighting his own cousins, Krishna explains to Arjuna his duties as a warrior and prince and elaborates on different Yogic and Vedantiic philosophies, with examples and analogies. This has led to the Gita often being described as a concise guide to Hindu theology and also as a practical, self-contained guide to life. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi describes it as a lighthouse of eternal wisdom that has the ability to inspire any man or woman to supreme accomplishment and enlightenment. During the discourse, Krishna reveals His identity as the Supreme Being Himself (Svayam Bhagavan), blessing Arjuna with an awe-inspiring vision of His divine universal form.

The basic teachings can be summarized as under:

• Why do you worry without cause? Whom do you fear without reason? Who can kill you? The soul is neither born, nor does it die.
• Whatever happened, happened for the good; whatever is happening, is happening for the good; whatever will happen, will also happen for the good only. You need not have any regrets for the past. You need not worry for the future. The present is happening…
• What did you lose that you cry about? What did you bring with you, which you think you have lost? What did you produce, which you think got destroyed? You did not bring anything – whatever you have, you received from here. Whatever you have given, you have given only here. Whatever you took, you took from God. Whatever you gave, you gave to him. You came empty handed, you will leave empty handed. What is yours today, belonged to someone else yesterday, and will belong to someone else the day after tomorrow. You are mistakenly enjoying the thought that this is yours. It is this false happiness that is the cause of your sorrows.
• Change is the law of the universe. What you think of as death, is indeed life. In one instance you can be a millionaire, and in the other instance you can be steeped in poverty. Yours and mine, big and small – erase these ideas from your mind. Then everything is yours and you belong to everyone.
• This body is not yours, neither are you of the body. The body is made of fire, water, air, earth and ether, and will disappear into these elements. But the soul is permanent – so who are you?
• Dedicate your being to God. He is the one to be ultimately relied upon. Those who know of his support are forever free from fear, worry and sorrow.
• Whatever you do, do it as a dedication to God. This will bring you the tremendous experience of joy and life-freedom forever.

Some Quotes from famous personalities across the world on the Bhagavad Gita:

Albert Einstein

“When I read the Bhagavad Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.”

Aldous Huxley

“The Bhagavad Gita is the most systematic statement of spiritual evolution of endowing value to mankind. It is one of the most clear and comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed; hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to all of humanity.”

Mahatma Gandhi

“When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and I see not one ray of hope on the horizon, I turn to Bhagavad Gita and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. Those who meditate on the Gita will derive fresh joy and new meanings from it every day.”

Henry David Thoreau

“In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial.”

Dr. Albert Schweitzer

“The Bhagavad Gita has a profound influence on the spirit of mankind by its devotion to God which is manifested by actions.”

Carl Jung

“The idea that man is like unto an inverted tree seems to have been current in by gone ages. The link with Vedic conceptions is provided by Plato in his Timaeus in which it states ‘behold we are not an earthly but a heavenly plant.’ This correlation can be discerned by what Krishna expresses in chapter 15 the Bhagavad Gita.”

Herman Hesse

“The marvel of the Bhagavad Gita is its truly beautiful revelation of life’s wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

“I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us.”

About the Author:

MA,DMM,MBA
(Faculty of Management Studies,University of Delhi,India),
Management Education Consultant.
Over 30 years Industry,Education and Training experience

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – The Bhagavad Gita:Teachings and Message

Review: Journey Through the World of Spirit (Trade Paperback)

Title: Journey Through the World of Spirit / God, Gaia and Guardian Angels
Author: David L. Oakford
Media: Trade Paperback
Publisher: Reality Press
Date: 2007

This review originally appeared at Earthpages.org as a voice-over video on December 28, 2007. When recording I had no notes other than the memory of what I’d just read. As such, there’s a certain live quality to this review that I hoped to preserve in this transcript.

The soundtrack was spontaneously composed and recorded just before I made the review. The book was inspiring and plain text just wasn’t enough.

In editing the transcript some extraneous material (e.g. “ahh” “sort of”) was removed.

So here’s the original voice-over review and its much overdue and slightly edited transcript.

Original Introduction

I had a choice… spend hours trying to get something representative down in writing or have some fun doing a video review. I chose to do a video review.

This is my first video review and it’s been a while since I was a DJ but I think it gets the message across: “This is a great book…”

Transcript

This is a great book! I really enjoyed this book. I read it during the hustle and bustle of the pre-Christmas shopping period. And I just found it was a wonderful way to be reminded of things I already believed in. But I think I needed a little refresher course–and this book was it.

It starts off with David’s very honest and frank account of teenage angst and disillusionment. He’s planning on ditching out on his parents at about age 19 to go find himself. He’s going to, I think, live in a tent and travel around and live on the cheap and find a deeper meaning that he couldn’t find in his teenage years.

But before he plans to leave he wants to say farewell to all his friends. So he goes to a party, a farewell party, and one of his buddies comes up to him and gives him some pretty dangerous drugs. The buddy warns David not to take the drugs until he’s instructed on how to use them but David doesn’t listen and proceeds to slip into a coma. At that point he starts to have some pretty interesting experiences.

He starts off by seeing his friends – if I remember right, they’re in a car – but his friends can’t see him. Then he’s back in the house, looking at his motionless body; and he’s still fully awake and alive, moving about the house, sort of hovering like a spirit.

He notes that he can’t move objects. His hand goes through the faucet. And Jim Morrison and the Doors are playing and the music is very irritating to David, which I found interesting because I’ve always liked the Doors — as it deals with otherworldly themes — but it all just sounded like noise when he was in this refined consciousness.

He then proceeds to bigger and better things. A spirit guide comes to help him, one of several otherworldly beings whom David claims to meet in this account. And the spirit guide, whom David calls “Bob” – [laughs] it’s just so much like this book; it’s so unpretentious and straightforward and incredibly well-written, to boot. Anyhow, the spirit guide shows David a scene of the pyramids in Egypt, how they stand today and how they stood around the time of their construction.

One thing I found very interesting about this is that David claims the past and the present interact in some kind of mysterious way, like interacting, overlapping fields.

I think that’s fascinating. To read that in a book… that kind of thing is quite rare. You find it a bit in the Jane Roberts books, the Seth Books, and you find it I believe in Emmanuel’s Books if I remember right (I haven’t looked at those for a few years).

But it’s a fascinating idea that time is interactive, and I found that present in this book. I also found the idea that the heavens are interactive with our Earthly reality. David saw, as a matter of fact (after the Egyptian experience)… his guide took him up to a spiritual city. And this spiritual city apparently interacts with our Earth, and life on Earth, in ways we don’t fully understand.

The bottom line is the spiritual beings (and David outlines quite a few of them)… their basic message is that we should love one another. And I really can’t find any fault with that message whatsoever.

On page 74 David writes:

The unvarnished truth is that I went to heaven, or at least one of them, that is connected to Earth and brought back the simple message to love one another.

You know, I find there’s no conflict here with my Catholic faith. Some of you may know that I, myself, converted to Catholicism in 2001 and some Catholics might not like this book. There are a few swipes at organized religion and I understand that perspective. I used to be like that when I was a kid, actually.

I never went to Church or anything like that. If I didn’t have spiritual experiences within the Catholic Church I wouldn’t go. The whole reason I converted is because I do have spiritual experiences. But for those who don’t have spiritual experiences in the Church I understand how they can just see it as seemingly wooden and formulaic—it’s not, it’s not just that.

And I think this is one point I would disagree on but other than that, I mean… hey, Earthpages is about dialogue so I try to look for the interesting and the good and if I disagree with something I just say so.

I would highly recommend this book. I think it’s incredibly well-written, honest and there’s such a complexity to the account that it really makes one feel that it’s not just a hallucination. Some materialist psychiatrists will say that all near death experiences are just the brain’s way of trying to make you feel good before you die but, I don’t know, I just think that this book… the complexity, detail and duration of the near death experience really tends to make one think there’s something to it.

–MC

Review – The Viking Serpent by Harald S. Boehlke (DVD)

The Viking Serpent takes the viewer into the heart of Norway, where Harald S. Boehlke, son of a Norwegian diplomat, presents his case for a radical reinterpretation of the traditional Biblical symbols for evil.

Longstanding tensions between orthodox and Gnostic Christianity are highlighted with Boehlke favoring the Gnostic position.

Boehlke’s unusual and unique pro-Gnostic argument is backed up with on-site evidence, cartographic analysis and historical data.

At the very least, this DVD is thought-provoking and should serve as a launch pad for those interested in following up on Boehlke’s extraordinary and far-reaching claims.

The DVD also contains some truly beautiful footage, with director and host Philip Gardiner facilitating as a kind of guide to Boehlke’s challenging exposition.

The Viking Serpent is recommended for those wanting to learn more about Gnosticism and the Celtic Church while enjoying some breathtaking scenes of the natural and architectural marvels of Norway, surely one of the most aesthetically pleasing countries in the world today.

–MC

Review – Science of Soul: The End-Time Solar Cycle of Chaos in 2012 A.D. (DVD)

Reality Films

Title: Science of Soul: The End-Time Solar Cycle of Chaos in 2012 A.D.
Author: John Jay Harper
Director: Philip Gardiner
Media: DVD
Producer: Reality Films
Total time: 62:25

Will humanity experience a quantum leap of consciousness around 2012 or will this be the year of our collective undoing?

Closely following his book Tranceformers: Shamans of the 21^st Century, Dr. John Jay Harper’s Science of Soul: The End-Time Solar Cycle of Chaos in 2012 A.D. asks this and other compelling questions.

Science of Soul’s innovative graphics and hip soundtrack set the mood for an exploration into the mythic symbol of the axis mundi (world axis) and possible links among human DNA, psi and global transformation.

This DVD should sit well with those embracing the philosophy of natural pantheism, where the universe is taken to be God and therefore conscious.

By way of contrast, believers in theism (where God and creation are seen as ‘wholly other’) might find it challenging.

Regardless of one’s core beliefs, Science of Soul carries an ethical message that few would dispute: To love and live peacefully among ourselves.

It’s probably just a matter of time before Science of Soul’s integral approach is embraced by the equally opinionated gatekeepers of both science and religion.

But a comprehensive gelling of Big Science and Big Religion might take a little longer than most of us would like, given the deeply entrenched historical biases that continue to inform our 21^st century worldview.

We shouldn’t be discouraged, however.

As a catalyst for this much-needed dialogue, Science of Soul is a definite step in the right direction.

–MC

Blind Leading the Blind

like a drunk... in a midnight choir...

Blind Leading the Blind
by Anagarika Eddie Rock

If we become involved in preaching to others or teaching religion before experiencing Ultimate Truth first hand for ourselves, we teach from ego and not true compassion. Only when we personally touch Ultimate Truth with all its subtleties does universal love replace ambition. Then, our only concern is the residue of hatred and competitiveness that still may remain within ourselves, and the suffering of our fellow human beings that is now so clear to us.

One who teaches, yet has not experienced Ultimate Truth, is in effect faking it. They know that they are faking it. They pretend otherwise, however, so that support will be provided by the faithful. This is grand deception at the cruelest level.

The fakers lifestyle usually gives them away. They simply do not have the restraint that an experience of Ultimate Truth imparts upon a teacher, an attitude of humility and humbleness as a result of touching this great, Ultimate Truth. The pretender, alas, still believes that they are the center of the universe. They can’t keep the pretending up for long, however, because their underlying desires will give them away every time.

Touching Ultimate truth does a number on the true teacher. Desires fade away and lifestyles becomes very simplified and ordinary. This is not because of some meaningless austerity, i.e. trying to prove that they are holy or some such nonsense, but because of something much deeper. They simply lose interest in the playthings of the world just as a little girl puts away her dolls or a little boy his toy trucks. They grow up, and their attitudes change.

This restraint is also reflected in the true teacher’s words, which are always truthful and insightful and never straying from the central theme of spirituality by helping people find their own ultimate truth. They might talk about politics or business but only from the viewpoint of politics’ and business’ hypnotic effects that keeps one from ever experiencing Ultimate Truth for themselves.

So the restraint exhibited by a true teacher is not some kind of grandstanding, but a reflection of the peace and gentleness of mind that was instilled by touching Ultimate Truth.

Conversely, the pretender’s speech will consist of second hand information and quotes from other sources other than from their hearts. This is because, not yet having touched Ultimate Truth, their hearts are still caught in the world of forms and excitement. It can even get to the point of losing interest in spirituality all together and jumping into politics or business related discussions in order to attract more supporters. That is a certain give away that the teacher is faking it. Without restraint caused by an authentic religious experience, the true colors eventually come out because pretenders cannot duck their karma forever. They can only pretend for so long.

These kinds of teachers can be quite dangerous. Many people who can’t see through these people blindly follow them. They are usually people not equipped to think for themselves, resulting in a quintessential predicament of the blind leading the blind. This is where the danger comes in because blind people may drink the Cool Aid, or go off the deep end politically. Thus we have the extremist groups of religion and ideology that creates so much hatred and suffering in the world today.

We usually develop our particular religious and idealistic beliefs based upon our heritage, our own experiences, our level of awareness, and on our particular ideas of spirituality based on what we hear and read in church or through the media. As these beliefs become personalized and solidified, we dig in our heels and it becomes increasingly difficult to change our conclusions. If we have formed these conclusions before we have had that consciousness shifting epiphany that changes our perspective from one of ambition to love, then we set out to spread the word as pretenders. This is the basis of the vast majority of teachers and preachers.

The problem is that although proselytizing is effective in uneducated, poverty stricken third-world countries or among the very young, it is not so successful with mature adults in educated, discerning societies. Discerning individuals have enough confidence to think for themselves. Are Christians open to becoming Muslim? Are Buddhists tripping over each other to convert to Catholicism? Not really. We are mostly satisfied and comfortable with our own particular beliefs.

If we are secure within those beliefs and find that loving kindness and virtue result from practicing our religion, we tend to be happy and quietly live our own religion, leaving others alone. We don‘t worry about converting them, confident that they will find their own way depending on their inclinations and level of consciousness. But if we, who quietly practice our own religion without fanfare or notoriety, are disrespected, then there is a backlash.

What we are seeing in the world today is sectarian, fundamentalist aggressiveness in many religions. This is troubling. We are seeing more and more of it; from sects such as the Taliban, to the proponents of a 6,000 year old earth. Religions, per se, which are perceived to be based on gentleness and peace, seem to be moving toward political, aggressive agendas, all fueled by teachers and preachers who are pretenders of the Ultimate Truth.

Please. This is not in any way a disparagement of true spirituality or many religious followers, but simply a reflection, an observation, and a chance for overzealous proponents of various movements to perhaps take a long look at themselves. Not only at themselves, but perhaps at other religions as well from an attitude of respect rather than judgment; a respect for the peaceful and truthful ideals of all religions. Then, maybe we can find a gentler, more respectful, more peaceful way to spread our particular, sectarian doctrines by example instead of causing self-inflicted animosity. Religious beliefs shouldn’t spin out of control into war. War is not love; war reflects fear.

There are good, wholesome, and harmonious qualities in all religions where a common ground can be found. It begins by accepting different beliefs that foster peace and harmony and finding that peace among ourselves instead of competing with each other, even spiritual, idealistic competition which is of the most dangerous kind. This is the beginning of living together in harmony.

Be sure that you can trust your teacher. Look them over carefully; their lifestyle, their attitudes, and especially their compassion. Are they caring and relaxed; or are they restless and ambitious? Choose them as carefully as you would choose a mate, because their influence might affect your every relationship.

And if you are not sure about them, better to strike out on your own.

—

Anagarika eddie is a meditation teacher at the Dhammabucha Rocksprings Meditation Retreat Sanctuary www.dhammarocksprings.org and author of A Year to Enlightenment. His 30 years of meditation experience has taken him across four continents including two stopovers in Thailand where he practiced in the remote northeast forests as an ordained Thervada Buddhist monk.

He lived at Wat Pah Nanachat under Ajahn Chah, at Wat Pah Baan Taad under Ajahn Maha Boowa, and at Wat Pah Daan Wi Weg under Ajahn Tui. He had been a postulant at Shasta Abbey, a Zen Buddhist monastery in northern California under Roshi Kennett; and a Theravada Buddhist anagarika at both Amaravati Monastery in the UK and Bodhinyanarama Monastery in New Zealand, both under Ajahn Sumedho. The author has meditated with the Korean Master Sueng Sahn Sunim; with Bhante Gunaratana at the Bhavana Society in West Virginia; and with the Tibetan Master Trungpa Rinpoche in Boulder, Colorado. He has also practiced at the Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Massachusetts, and the Zen Center in San Francisco.

Article Source: amazines.com

Renaissance Art and the Depiction of Archangels

Close-up of the Saint Michael statue at the Cloisters: METROgrl / Marguerite

By Rob Mabry

Archangels were a commonplace subject for artists from the Middle Ages through the Renaissance Period. As Angels of Presence, with the permission to enter the presence of God, the four Archangels – Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael and Michael were recognized across the religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, although their greatest roles were often documented in apocryphal writings.

The most well known depiction of the Archangel Michael resides in the Santa Maria della Concezione, in the first chapel. The work is from Renaissance painter Guido Reni, who was a master of the Baroque style which evolved from the Roman Catholic Churches edict that religious art should engage the commoner with dramatic and emotional appeal. Reni’s The Archangel Michael shows the fair haired, musculatured angel with androgynous features hovering over the Devil, with his foot against the demon’s head forcing him into submission. The painting depicts a scene from the book of Revelations where Archangel Michael commands an Angel Army against Lucifer and binds him for 1000 years. It is often referred to as Archangel Michael Slaying the Devil.

The Archangel Gabriel was the angel who announced to the Virgin Mary that she would have a son by God. This biblical event is referred to as The Annunciation and is a frequent subject of Renaissance art. Two works stand out as iconic paintings on the subject. Da Vinci’s the Annunciation was painted from 1472-1475 and is credited to both Da Vinci and his mentor Andrea del Verrocchio. In the painting Archangel Gabriel kneels before Mary, a Madonna lily in hand which historians believe symbolizes Mary’s virginity.

Botticelli’s Cestello Annunciation, commissioned in 1489, captures the same event with similar imagery. The painting is noted for its use of perspective in the tiles that lead the eye to the landscape. Botticelli paints Gabriel with mouth open, to represent his words from the Gospel of Luke which were added into the paintings original frame. Today both paintings can be seen in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy.

The angel Raphael was most often captured in oil as the guardian of Tobias, son of Tobit on his journey to recover hidden money for his blind father, a passage from the Book of Tobit. His role as god of healing and protector is evident in these paintings that show him leading the boy by his hand. Filippino Lippi’s version of Tobias and the Angel can be seen at the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. Rembrandt took great interest in the Book of Tobit and the Archangel Raphael, making it a frequent subject of his work.

Da Vinci used Archangel Uriel as the subject of two nearly identical paintings titled Virgin of the Rocks or Madonna of the Rocks. The painting displays a scene where the baby Jesus encounters his cousin John the Baptist as an infant. In the paintings, the Archangel Gabriel is seated to the Mary’s left holding the baby Jesus. Subtle variations can be seen in Da Vinci’s two paintings. In the version of the painting on display in the National Gallery in London, Mary, Jesus and John are haloed. In the version that can be seen in the Lourve, Uriel points at John. While the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown has created some controversy around these paintings and the true identity of Jesus in the image – art historians surmise that the original where Uriel points at John who is closest to Mary did create confusion and the second painting by Da Vinci removed this gesture.

Article Source: Articles Engine

Archangels were a popular subject of artists from the Renaissance period who captured the angels in both paintings and Archangel Statues. Rob Mabry is a former military journalist living in San Antonio. He writes about travel, technology, history and film. He is the owner of Your Museum Store where you can find reproductions of famous museum artifacts.

The Mayan Calendar Prophesy – 2012 – A Hoax or Reality?

End Of Times 2012: urbanwoodswalker / M.A. Enriquez

Author: Carlos Antonio Perez

You probably already know this. There is a lot of talk about the world ending on December 21, 2012. Pop culture has focused on the Mayan Calendar. It ends on December 21, 2012. Why do so many embrace that day as the end of the world? Is it mass humankind intuitiveness, a subconscious knowingness? Is it clever marketing? More bluntly, is the Mayan calendar prophesy, a hoax or reality?

Mayan Calendars

Did you know there were many Mayan calendars? The Mayans were an agrarian people. Their world revolved around the seasons and the celestial bodies that governed those seasons. They had a solar calendar and a lunar calendar. They had a calendar that recorded the heavenly journey of Venus and various other calendars associated with their many gods.

Why did the Mayans prophesy the end of the world? Maybe they did not. No one can say that the Mayans intentionally made any such prophesy. Maybe their intention was simply to create calendars, calendars to mark and record their history and to meet their agricultural needs.

Three Calendars

The three most publicized Mayan calendars were the Tzolkin, the Haab, and the Long Calendar. By some calculations, the Mayan calendar is said to be more accurate than our modern day Gregorian calendar!

The Tzolkin calendar was the sacred or ceremonial calendar. It consisted of 13 numbered days and 20 names. It recorded a 260-day cycle.

The Haab calendar was the solar calendar. It consists of 18 months of 20 days each plus one month of 5 “nameless” days added to the cycle. It is a 365-day calendar. The Tzolkin and Haab combine to create the Calendar Round, which depicts a 52-year cycle.

The Long Calendar was a linear calendar. That is to say a calendar to count years. It was a linear calendar much like our modern day Gregorian and Julian calendars. The Mayans used it to go forward and backward in time. It is still in use today in some modern day Mayan villages. The Long Calendar spans a period of approximately 5125 years.

The End and the Mystery

I am sure that you are well aware that all calendars end at some point. Our Gregorian calendars end every year at midnight on December 31st and start over again the following day. Our calendars record a 365-day cycle. We have a 10-year cycle we call a decade, a one hundred year cycle that we call a century.

The Mayans did the same thing. The Long Calendar ends on December 21, 2012 and a new cycle begins. What makes this particular date so mysterious and foreboding? It is interesting and worth noting that there are a few things that coincide with this particular date.

• The Hindus prophesy the end of the world, as we know it, and the beginning of a new world at about the same time.
• St. Malachy, the prophet, foretold the last Roman Catholic pope to be of the Benedictine Order. The current pope is Benedict XVI.
• One I Ching scholar has correlated that teaching to show an ending of our world around the same date.
• Scientists identify that year as a year of intense solar activity that could have dire consequences for our world.
• On that day our sun, the earth, and the center of the Milky Way, our galaxy, will be in alignment.
• December 21, 2012 is the winter solstice.
• Mayan scholars have translated inscriptions that imply the end. Some scholars interpret the inscriptions to mean the end of the world.

Do these facts imply the end of the world? Only you can make that judgment. This short article does little justice to the subject. You owe it to yourself to become informed. Regardless of the prophesy’s validity, one should always keep an open mind and be prepared for any calamity.

Decide for yourself. Is 2012 hoax or reality? Prepare for the possibilities. Why not be prepared and arm yourself with knowledge?

About the Author:

Carlos Antonio Perez is a free-lance writer. He has studied the merging of science and the metaphysical for over forty years. Learn more about this intriguing subject at http://2012-Prophesy.scribes-page.com.

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – The Mayan Calendar Prophesy – 2012 – A Hoax or Reality?

Review – The Cross of Thoth (DVD)

Reality Films

Title: The Cross of Thoth
Interviewer and Director: Philip Gardiner
Media: DVD
Producer: Reality Films

The Cross of Thoth makes esoteric connections among astrology, navigation, archaeology, linguistics, ancient Pagan and early Christian history.

So much material is covered in this DVD that the intelligent layperson might have a hard time assessing each and every one of its assertions.

The host, Crichton E. M. Miller, seems to be a contemporary Gnostic. And Gnostics are a bit different from orthodox Christians.

Not unlike the word orthodoxy, the term Gnosticism is somewhat ambiguous because there have been several different Gnosticisms throughout history.

In the general sense, however, Gnostics are those who apparently learn about spiritual truth through direct, inward experience. Unlike orthodox believers, Gnostics say they don’t believe at all. They know.

While orthodoxy tends to embrace a linear view of history, where Christ is seen as the perfect fulfillment of the Old Testament prophets, contemporary Gnostics tend to emphasize a circular or upwardly spiraling view of time.

Gnostics also say (or imply) that orthodox churches place too much emphasis on externally imposed rules and blind obedience. For Gnostics, orthodox doctrines and well-worn structures apparently squelch out genuine spirituality.

Meanwhile, orthodox churches tend to say (or imply) that Gnostics are fuzzy-minded mavericks, possibly deceived by ungodly spiritual powers–i.e. Satan.

Perhaps alluding to this orthodox idea, Toronto Catholic Archbishop Michael Collins said to a Sikh spiritual leader (in an interfaith dialogue on TVO’s The Agenda) that true spirituality isn’t a mere “glow” but an ongoing commitment to serve God.

The popular author Elaine Pagels attempts to sum up the main differences between Gnosticism and aspects of Western orthodoxy:

When the Jewish theologian Martin Buber sought to explore the sources of religious experience, he characterized the Jewish devotee’s relationship to God as “I and Thou”; but no orthodox Jew, any more than an orthodox Christian, could say, with the Hindu devotee, “I am Thou.” But Gnostic interpreters share with the Hindu…that very conviction (Adam, Eve and the Serpent. New York: Vintage Books, 1989: 65).

This brings to mind a Catholic homily I once heard where a priest said that God doesn’t want “Lone Rangers” but, rather, obedience to the Pope.

Whether or not this is an accurate depiction of what most Catholics actually believe seems debatable. But to my mind Miller would probably be viewed by traditional Catholics as both a Gnostic and a Lone Ranger.

This kind of polarized ‘in-group/out-group’ approach, so common today, probably doesn’t help to lessen the split between orthodox Christians and Gnostics.

But these two groups haven’t always been at loggerheads. Elaine Pagels notes that some early Christians admired their Gnostic counterparts, if not in every respect.

Could contemporary Gnostics and orthodox believers benefit from well-intentioned dialogue?

It seems they could, providing each side checked their biases at the door and looked to the other as fellow human beings instead of mere objects for conversion. Dialogue isn’t really dialogue is one or more parties are utterly convinced they’re right.

Along these lines, some orthodox believers might angrily react to several of Miller’s ideas in this DVD. But sincere seekers of all persuasions should recognize that overblown, emotional reactions often point to something lurking in the unconscious just begging to be brought to light and integrated within consciousness.

Agree or disagree with Miller’s complex observations and far-reaching conclusions, The Cross of Thoth is highly recommended for those wishing to dig a little deeper into the mysteries of the human soul.

–MC

With minor revisions from 2008/06/01