Dear Evgeny

What little I know of Guru Bogar, I know because of cultural and Geographic proximity and a personal interest.

That someone knows much more out of pure interest makes the knowledge all the more valuable.
Thanks for T N Ganapathy’s reference-I would look it up.
Personally I don’t do group worship or bhajans -but have seen people who consciously practice rituals [as a body-mind disciplining exercise] and do group bhajans, sing and dance –it works for them.
Some rituals may not suit some places and some time periods.
If folks blindly follow rituals without understanding the reasoning, it wouldn’t help them, but if they practice out of a sincere wish to know the divine, they would eventually be lead to it.
They would be picked up from that point –it works like a passenger –friendly, car lift system.

Rituals are not needed. Agreed. But the opposite is true too :-):-),
It’s like the life raft that won’t be needed after a person boards a safe ship. For those who struggle to reach that safe ship of true knowledge, it is very much needed. Just like the donkey analogy you talk about. Those who are there don’t need it. Agreed. But some folks do and let them do that.

Rituals are Karma Yoga and is a stage that leads folks to the next stage-what is needed by whom and what way one should pursue is always a big question. The need for a Guru/guide puts us on the right path-not the only one but the one that is most suitable to us.
Yes, what helps the faithful is another classic question. Faith [ auto-suggestion or something external?]One of the words for God in my native language is KadavuL. Means “that which is beyond and within” ?No form, no gender. It isn’t anything that is external.
The KadavuL or faith /positive attitude/willing with mind] works from within. Doesn’t matter what each person calls that, but folks get help.
It ‘s in the lexicon, it is a fundamental concept. Yet, not all want to and are therefore able to search within-an external reference point is needed for many.
So long as folks don’t fight over what that reference point should be and treat the search as an individual journey, things should be fine.

As for poking flesh, I too don’t think it is a pleasant sight to watch e.:-)((But, I guess where I differ is that I believe not all who do that are exhibitionists/ show-offs. Some genuinely believe that’s the way to show their gratitude /Love for what they believe in.
That’s the way they have grown up.
They, as you rightly point out, are looking at the World from their own vantage point.
They can choose to move on or stay there, or explore another view-it’s all in the choice.

Thiruvalluvar says one need not clean shave/grow a beard [ to be an ascetic/renouncer] if they can truly renounce the negative.[ Yama in Ashtanga Yoga]
But great sages who have realised come in all garbs. Some wear religious marks, some don’t even wear clothing, some are Sanyasis, some even married !
There is a Buddha, there is a Ramakrishna.
What is important is the fact that they help the World by just being around.
Meerabhai says, if river Ganges can liberate people, then all the fish in the river would be liberated!
She makes a similar list of what folks consider religious and says categorically any such ritualistic act would be pointless without love.
This is Bhakthi Yoga-eventually it leads the practioner to Gnana Yoga where he/she realises that “we are all pieces of the Divine “.
She is supposed to have shed her body in an unusual way-simply merged with the divine light and left no trace s of a physical; body-there are other examples too-Gnana Sambandhar being one.
Adi Shankara, the great philosopher, has written, lectured extensively on Bhakthi [for those who want that] as wells as “Shivoham” philosophy.[ for those who are ready for that].

Would chk the radio link.
Confucian theories worked for ancient China, but Dharmic guidelines , woven in to the very fabric of the ancient Indian society has helped in maintaining superior moral values.
The present day degradation is due to the fact that a nation was occupied, made to forget her rich past , put through artificial famines and wars for not her fault and finally put on charge of selfish , destructive “ leaders” .
I quote below a great guy called. Macaulay,:-))

2 FEBRUARY, 1835
I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one
person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country,
such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would
ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation,
which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we
replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians
think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own,
they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what
we want them, a truly dominated nation.


Just to show there is proof [ from the horse’s mouth ,so to speak]that the Dharmic system worked before this wanton destruction happened.

This system is not a religion by how the modern West defines the word.
If they mean rigid dogma=religion, then it isn’t one.

“Do I care to be an awaken part of it? Yes. Do I practice to reach that goal?
Yes. “.
Fully agree with that sentiment, as am on the same boat.
No one is right and no one is wrong”
Yes, I have always seen the difference-was brought up with that concept- “We are right. They are right too”.
Grew up up mother figures and father figures who were always in to debates on rituals vs realisation .

Thank you –these thought exchanges are a very good idea.

Ps: I am adding to the lengthy comment. Suddenly was struck by the thought that the flesh-pokers don’t bleed .They probably choose specific [ acupuncture ?] points. This and fire walking is practiced by some cultures outside India too.
Can someone tell me whether it’s a conscious decision to put oneself in a certain state of mind – the same way as Aasanas and Pranayama?
Regards

Dear Narensomu,

thank you for your time! I do know quite a lot about Guru Boganathar. From my teacher, who is his follower, from the T.N. Ganapathy's book and from the Internet. I even have some paste which have stayed overnight on the idol he made. My point was, that there are 2 ways to achieve - believe, that you can reach to the Divine (by prayers, chanting, sacrifice etc). Or that you can empty yourself of the ego and let the Divine, which is already in you come out. I don't say the first option (which is the Bhakti approach found in Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc) is worse than the second. It assumes that Divine is outside and you have to call it out (the male approach of going out. Also an approach that defines the Divine as not Omnipresent! :-)
But I personally believe that we are all pieces of the Divine (if It is omnipresent, there is no other option, right? :-) and the second method works better for me. The same way none of my cells prays to the rest of the body, I don't see a reason to pray to something of which I am a tiny piece. Do I care to be an awaken part of it? Yes. Do I practice to reach that goal? Yes. Do I need the concept of God? No. Do I need rituals and meaningless (for TODAY) rituals? Only to grasp what their purpose was. Then - no more!
I wouldn't poke my flesh to prove to the onlookers (or my own poor soul) that I believe in God.
Once you climb the top of the mountain, do you need the donkey to look down?
Interestingly, Chicago Public Radio had 2 days ago an interesting program on similar question, including the role of religion on moral.
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Content.aspx?audioID=33402
A good point was made - one of the most religious societies was the one based on Confucianism. Very, very strict moral values. No God.
Of course, the opposite examples exist as well :-)
And yes, people from all background have experiences. Christians get healed by their faith as do Muslims and Hindus. But it's the faith process which conditions their energy! Not the object in which they believe.
Does it mean that in this case the religion is still good, as it provided the platform for this faith? For certain people I guess the answer is yes.
People have moved and grown with a different view of the World. Some look at it through a keyhole, some through a window and others - from the door step. No one is right and no one is wrong. But I hope you see the difference :-)
Namaste!

Mogambo placed his jest on the comment space on 7th April and settled down to smile quietly by himself. NS noticed the joke and mentioned it in passing on 8th while answering Evgeny's initiations in detail. Today Dwai too has acknowledged it. Others who have not pitched in are also smiling.
Thank you, Mogambo!
Regards. Partha.

Dear Mogambo,

Surely you jest?
You mean there was no Sanatana Dharma that has been recorded in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, the Classic Indian Epics before the arrival of the British?

The revivalist of this way of life strove to and re-established it's pre-eminence in the Indian landscape around 8th Century, CE (and he displaced successfully the doctrine of Buddha's followers as a process).

Maybe the adage of "Isms" were given by the Brits or Europeans, but surely that doesn't discount the fact that these systems existed? Are you trying to perhaps distract the audience and debaters such that the focus shifts from the topic at hand?

Dear Evgeny
The link of that site you talk about has some initiation rituals too:-)) [ the fee part]
Yes, Partha is right about most institutions having an initiation ritual.

But then again, something which I am still confused about, getting into the steps of Guru Boghar - if he had achieved the things we believe he had, why did he need the idol, few molecules of each I have at home today? :-)

Regarding your comparison of Buddha and Bogar, I have this to say.
Different people may be in different stages of spiritual evolution. They become what they want to become. Some sit alone and find solutions for mankind's problems in a subtle way.
Some choose to help people in less subtle ways.
Regarding Siddha Purusha Boghar-he may have been Indian or Chinese-he was a Yogi to whom Siddhis were servants. If you have heard of him you certainly would have heard of his contribution to
“Siddha “medicine.
Two possible scenarios I can think of:
1.He was a person who practiced Yoga and he attained several siddhis –a side effect of Yogic practice and was experimenting with them to benefit others.
2.He was a realized soul. He could have gone past Siddhis , shunned them, but he probably wanted to use them for the benefit of mankind without any sense of attachment from his part.

The latter theory sounds more probable ,given the fact that the “idol “ of the child Yogi Subramanya at Pazhani, Tamil nadu is an unusual one- you may not want to believe the energy aspect –but the medicinal aspect-the curative abilities of the “molecules” has worked for many.
[Rare herbs, etc.]
There , the viva la difference in points of view again.
The East doesn’t compare one great soul with another. As they don’t think there is only one right way to be spiritual .
Buddha was/is needed for some souls , Boghar’s contribution and his guidance of Bhakthi
[ single minded concentration thru devotion] towards one deity /aspect of divine helps some other souls.
For those souls who pray for health or a baby, they too get solace. The same way St Lourdes cures people.For those who pray for spiritual progress , Pazhani is the site to visit, if they are interested in the deity worship of Subramanya.
There is a wide range of choices before us-we can take what appeals to us and march forward if we are so inclined.
Reg. crime and punishment
A large percentage of people don’t assault the girl next door for one of the following reasons. Deterrents to crimes so to speak.
1.Fear of law-A secular set of value systems.
2.Fear of God [ hellfire, bad next life etc]-A non secular set of value systems.

But some of them, with or without deterrents like these, wont, ever, as they believe
1.It’s plain wrong to hurt another life. They may be people who value life, theirs as well as others.
They’d also resist any temptation at the very first stage [ thought stage] as they may be concerned about their spiritual advancement.
We need deterrents as we live in an imperfect world. Not all are strong from the inside. Most people need deterrents.Despite stringent laws, crimes happen. Why, in some cases, men in uniform commit them .do we then scrape off law, courts and judiciary?
Yes, crimes happen in the name of religion. I’d say perpetrators, no matter what religion they follow, need more punishment in these cases. Governments would need a spine and we see that even heads of advanced nations tread carefully there .Why? It’s a hunger for power. Might is right issues.
For all their liberal talks, heads of advanced , powerful nations of the West still grapple with powerful religious lobbies. That doesn’t mean we wish away religions. It isn’t practical also.
It would always be a power struggle as the world is always something that strives to balance itself, but if we really are sincere seekers we’d try to look at things form a different perspective at least once a while.

Dear Mogambo
No big words to say about your latest comment. Just would say first, it made me laugh.:-)
Yes, nothing existed in this planet before that bunch of men set sail from the Isles in NW Europe. Marxist Historians would love this! [ But they are hard at work trying to account for more than 2000 years now] Thanks !
Regards
ns

Dear Mogambo,

I couldn't help but smile after reading your post --

maybe dharma systems are not same as "Abrahamic" religions
but dharma systems still have problems which are inherent of any framework that tries to work within the limitations of subject and object, percept and concept or rupa and nama.

if you would like ask some of the professional philosophers in your midst what this important concept implies or perhaps they can verify mogambos statement which is next:

any framework that functions within the limitations of nama and rupa are automatically bound by those limitations
so any framework that makes truth claims as being absolute truths cannot really claim that because of the aforementioned limitations
in other words different social cultural or biological characteristics will result in differences in perception and therefore in conception

for that reason a native american shaman can see spirits while others cant
a tao master can feel or sense or see energy but others cant
a yoga master can feel or sense or hear cakras and kundalini energy but others cant

one thing that you will find common in all examples mentioned above is that these are experiential truths and these experiences are given the clothing of words for the sake of conveyance

so while mogambo can and does endorse the practice of living these experiential truths through various methods such as yoga or meditation mogambo cannot accept that religion that makes absolute truth claims can be anything other than glorious lies and therefore dont deserve to exist

It is funny that you will use a darshanic argument/style to debate/refute it's very roots. You introduced Nama and Rupa, ie Form and Description, which interestingly enough is a by-product of one of these very religions you are trying to eradicate!

Without Religion, there WOULD BE NO Darshana. And each school of Darshana was formed to answer the "Ultimate" question. What does it tell you if the very system that was created to answer a question effectively shows that system has it's limitations?

I don't know about you, but let me tell you what I think --

The fact that Hinduism was the breeding ground for not one or two, but at least six significant schools of philosophy and metaphysics shows me that this "religion" has/had something more than some of it's more notorious counterparts (from other parts of the world).

The fact that a Yoga practitioner (pardon me if I don't call you a Yogi) can use one of the fundamental principles of one of these schools of metaphysics, that was created to answer the unanswerable tells me that this system or it's parent is, if not totally free, at least is significantly free of dogma.

You cannot cut the hand off and expect it to feed you. If you want to not fall sick, you have to use the hand wisely and keep it clean...Samething goes with religion, imho.

The American study on what motivates some initiation ceremonies is interesting. The study only picks up initiation rites of 'religious' groups or sects, as if America (and the West in general) is not chock full of strange initiation rites in every kind of special group including academic ones throughout their history and even in modern times, and often having nothing to do with any religious affiliation!
There are both secret rites and unabashed public rites. The first kind reinforce belonging in and commitment to the group. The second kind must have to do with ego satisfaction. The findings of the scientific study are right and are even quite obvious to intelligent observers as friend Evgeny points out. The careful sampling of rites of religious groups only as samples,is what makes the study biassed.
I agree with our friend that it is possible to be morally right and spiritually advanced, with or without religious affiliation.
I also agree with him when he says views can differ and that some people may find religion useful for the same two objectives.
Regards. Partha.

Of course, there is always a different view :-)

On the rituals etc - please, read the following article on the religious rituals - http://www.americanscientist.o...8573755936
If you can't get acces to it (or a library) I can forward it (etkolev@prodigy.net).
Basically, people like to show they are religious, because of their ego, not because of their faith. I didn't really need to read the research to come to the conclusion, but it's nice it was done.
I haven't read stories of Lao Tzu, Buddha, Zaratustra etc. going around proving to everyone their love to God. They didn't need to, did they? :-)
Speaking about it - true. In the contest that people may catch the idea (which they often didn't) - true.
And yes, yes - not everyone is like them of course.
(But then again, something which I am still confused about, getting into the steps of Guru Boghar - if he had achieved the things we believe he had, why did he need the idol, few molecules of each I have at home today? :-)

I do not agree that religion fullfils the purpse of "needed" moral values. Again, I will sign with Richard Dawkins, Cristopher Hitchens and the many examples why this is not the case. For one thing - the moral values should be based on the Golden Rule. And that's it.
Evrything else beyond is "OK. In case you don't get it, you can't rape the girl next door!". Which apparently still happens and not less so in the religious societies (anyone read the news from Afghanistan or the reports on Africa these days? :-)
Yes, there is a need for punishment, but it shouldn't be based on fear of unexisting beings (God(s)/Devil(s), spirits, etc.), but the fear from social justice.

And yes, biocultures and their worldviews differ. As does the world looked through the eyes of each of us. Because it is always the ego watching, not the One.

Dear Friends
I wanted to post this quote two days ago , but couldn’t. Anyway the discussion has reached an interesting point now.
"A man may be an agnost or atheist and may not follow ay religion , but if he .sincerelyseeks [ the "S " factor is important]he would find the ultimate truth somewhere along the way.
But if a man simply follows some religion just for the sake of it without making any individual effort-in other words-too lazy to bother-he will not know the ultimate truth. In my opinion the former kind has better cahnces of finding that truth and is a much better person as an individual"

Words [ not verbatim, I translated from Tamil, but the central idea is this]of an "orthodox"Hindu head of a religious institution .This should clear the clouds about the fundamantal differences in viewpoint about Eastern vs Western.
What Dwai rightly says about the introspective , individual oriented nature of Dharmic religions is clearly exemplified in this statement by a "religious "head. You call this saint religious or spiritual?!

Dharmic religions encourage you to seek on your own. All your life. No death- bed arrangements work.
You cant pay an “indulgence “ [ the origin of some words in English is very telling about the belief system that influenced language.] and get away after squandering a whole lifetime.You have to start young.
"Religions bad, spirituality good" is a blanket idea’/statement.
All religions not same –same , but there have been people who have reached there as followers of different religions.Eg. Meerabai, St. Theresa of Avila, Rabia Al Basra…the list is too long.
It is possible to reach there through any path -if the feeling /longing is strong, no matter what background the seeker is from-hé/she is taken along the right path, the one that is suitable for them.
Eastern religions are fundamentally different from Western religions.
If we have to understand anything we first have to remove our preset viewpoints.
And also anyone who is in to any kind of spiritual practice should develop a tolerance for what other people practice and will understand that different practices would always exist .
They cant be wished away –each human is unique and there would always be many ways that suit people’s temperament at that point in History.
So long as groups don’t step on each other’s shoes, or fight wars we should ‘nt have too any problems.[ i dont say "any"problems. But "not too many "as problems/ frictions are part of this World.]
And “No matter what you do , you are doomed “ is not a Hindu concept.:-))Thanks Mogembo for starting a very lively discussion.
Regards
ns

Dear friends,

When a villager in India worships a God/Deity, does he/she actually believe there is a real "Being" that he/she is worshipping or does he/she know that there is an energy/vibration that is the deity"?

I would answer Evgeny's question here first.
A typical Indian village devotee 's devotion is better than that of a tpical city dweller's.
They may not be aware of words like energy or prana - they may ask whether yoga is tall or short.:-)
But for sure, I have never heard them addressing their "idol" as "a dear piece of stone".

Amman [ Mother Goddess] is their Mother and Muruga /Ram/ Krishna are their Father figures. They in their colloquial way understand clearly that the mother/father figure is ommipotent. omnipresent and omniscient.
Thaipoosam , yes , it's a scene of what we call in Tamil as "Murattu Bhakthi"-rough devotion. I dont do that but I can understand what makes them do that.That's empathy .
I firmly belive it is possible to know the ultimate truth that way too.
They may fear retribution- if they didnt fulfil prayer wishes that they themselves made , so there may a fear factor there at work in some cases.But if a person makes a "murattu" [ rough] prayer wish to cure a loved one's life threatening condition and then fulfills it when they are granted their wish-the end result isthis.
Thier love for God is reinforced -they become closer to him /her. If their Bhakthi is superior . like Kannappa Nayanar , they may even attempt to sacrifice themselves and achieve the union we all are talking about. It may be a faster bus in some cases.:-)
Yoga or religion ,is only the means and the end can be achieved by either way. Religion may be the first step but some souls have taken a quantum leap to that last step by pure Bhakthi.
There are stages and not all of us need to go thru all stages. We can follow any route but if the goal is clear in our minds, we get appropriate help along the way.
Regards
ns

As I said earlier, it becomes possible in enlightened and therefore unemotional discussions like this to arrive at some kind of consensus.
Dwai is right about the broad difference between Abrahamic and other religions (faiths?). But he would also be aware that with some levels of awareness/understanding, it should be possible to detect dogmatic behaviour even among the 'followeers' of what Dwai sees as Dharmas.
As Sri Ramakrishna did, I believe it should be possible for a stable person to practice any religion without forgetting his basic aim of seeking truth and (re)union with self. Or, if he chooses, no religion at all.

Let us not bother about celebrative side effects. We know that for every clear scientific discovery, there are a hundred blurred technogies or applications possible.

If I may, let me refer to my old blog
http://www.medhajournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=207f-masters-disciples-and-apostles&catid=38:myblog
While a good Master creates some good disciples, he inadvertently also spawns apostles. Do we not have in India a whole political party of apostles of one family name?
Regards. Partha

It will be interesting to ask the question to an active participand in the Hindu festival of Thaipusam, for example :-)

I pose this question that you, Evgeny asked to to the rest of the Medhavis --

"When a villager in India worships a God/Deity, does he/she actually believe there is a real "Being" that he/she is worshipping or does he/she know that there is an energy/vibration that is the deity"?

So, in other words, do all followers of Dharmic systems truly understand the implications of the Dharma or do they treat dharma like an Abrahamic treats his religion?

I say the kind of dogma exhibited in Abrahamic religions is not possible in Dharmic systems.

True, true Dwai!
But as I've told you before, your concepts and understandig are not shared by the majority. Hence the issues with religion.
If what you are saying was accepted by everyone, life on Earth would have been better :-)

Dear Mogambo, evZENy, Partha, AS, Karigar, Mimi

Let us first come to a consensus on whether what Mogambo has been referring to as "religion" is the same as what I or anyone else sees it as.

Like I mentioned before, there is an inherent difference between Abrahamic Religions and Dharmic systems and that is this --

Abrahamic religions focus on the Collective, the Group, the Organization

Dharmic systems focus on the self

Abrahamic religions are outward focused and look for God without

Dharmic systems focus inward and look for Divinity within (some schools of Dharmic thought don't even consider that there IS a God).

As I understand it (and evZENy brought it up as well), mainstream disenchantment with Religion (especially in the West) is a direct result of this focus (of Abrahamic religions) on Organization, Rules and dogma.

These don't exist in such malignant forms in Dharmic systems. Agreed that dogma exists in Dharmic systems too, but they are not as systemic or predominant as in the Abrahamic religions.

I did try to emphasize the etymology of Dharma (and thus the root of Dharma -- Dhr Ma or Upholding the Mother/Way).
Religion is on the other hand derived from Latin Religio, which when broken down is composed of "Re" and "Ligare" (Re - Return, Ligare - Union). So Religion stands for Reunion. Reunion of What? I think that definition and the method to access it is lost now (in the Abrahamic traditions), only way to get it back is to realize that Reunion is basically Yoga (Yoga means Union).

It is very important to not throw the baby out with the bath water (as this wise saying goes). Like Partha pointed out...all systems have flaws and they have to be remedied -- and as Mimi indicated, since religion was man-made, it too has it's imperfections.

Taking Religion (and I use the word loosely now) as a tool to tune inward and back to the Divine, as a tool for Yoga. Eg: Purva Mimamsa, based on which Hindu Rituals and derivatives are designed, had a very specific significance and psychosomatic effect on the practitioner -- to ritualistically represent the sacrifice of the inner in the outer, to maintain balance in the universe (known then as Rta). Similarly, the process of worship in front of a deity is simply a process of offering the self internally simultaneously as one makes external offerings. I think what is necessary is a revival in the core understanding of the mechanism of Religion as opposed to obliteration of religion.

Otherwise we run the risk of what is happening to Yoga in the West today. Hundreds of "types" of Yoga are popping up all over the Western world. Hot Yoga, Cold Yoga, Christian Yoga, Jewish Yoga. Not many of these systems understand Yoga for what it really is -- a Path to Union of the Soul with the Divine (or a technology of rediscovering the true self). I have noticed an extreme knee-jerk reactionism to the West's interactions with Abrahamic religions clouding the judgement of Western seekers when it comes to Dharmic systems as well. That's why you see teachers stripping away the "spiritual" from the physical and teaching Yoga like yet another "loose your flabby butt in 30 days" programs.

I hope what I'm trying to articulate makes sense...we need a re-calibration and a revision of what Religion is and what it tries to achieve, instead of throwing one religion away and ending up creating another one in the process.

Arya Supremo
With risk to repeat myself - I grew up in a communist country. And I am writing in Medhajournal right now :-).
Did I grew up to be spiritual? You bet I did.
Was it religion that took me on my path? Not really. Some Daoist practices and Yoga.
Would they have existed without religion? Probably not. Or could it be, that religion wouldn't have existed without these teachings? But they are not religion and I don't need religion.

Why are they so thirsty to cling to some faith or organized religion?

Because it's easier :-).
That is reason #1 why Christianity is winning the religion game over the centuries. Paul created in a way, where you have to do little and still be saved. You can get a last minute deal! Or even - a postmortum one!
Unlike some of the Eastern teachings, where it doesn't matter what you do, you are doomed.
People realize they need more than the material.
But in XXI that should be fast, easy and with additional best offers :-)
Especially true for exploding China.
You don't hear Zoroastrianism grwoing, do you? :-)

EvZeny,

Spiritualism can and should be practiced with the guidence of those, who have achieved. Not with organized religion. Those who achieve do not become (religious) leaders. And those who become - have not achieved. If I can misquote Tao Te Ching.

Well quoted. My question still stands, will there be any spiritual development if one cannot practice religion; such as in Communist countries. In a nation were they prevent any religious practice, which will then prevent any spiritual enhancement.

I hear in the news that China is suffering from lack of faith? And now Chinese people are desperately seeking to convert into Christianity (by poorer people) or to Buddhism (by the richer folks). So even though they stayed under communist manifesto for so many years, people still need the urge to cling to some religion. Why are they so thirsty to cling to some faith or organized religion?

Rgds,
AS

I see where your examples are coming from.
But with the secular evolution, as with everything else, there are 2 sides.
Diseases were cured. True - new diseases emerged. Bad movies are made and culture of blind followers around them. You make a good point. But so were very good movies. And documentaries that open people's eyes ("What the Bleep...", "Earthlings", "An Inconvenient Truth"...).
The communism etc - the concepts behind this society structures are not necessarily bad! The way they were implemented was. Capitalism is around. For now. It won't be forever, either, as nothing is. But capitalism or socialism, the society moved much further from the feudal times, even with the imperfections they have.
Sports - true. I hate organized sport as I don't see the purpose behind it! Sport should be for us to PLAY, not sit in front of the TV's and watch! And nowayday more people have the chance to play whatever than ever before - like to swim, ski, bike, tennis, run... whatever.

So these are all steps, which helped the individual to move forward and away from repression and limitations. All - without the help of religion. And if I may say - ONLY after religion stopped messing and limiting these freedoms.

And if you look at the areas where this is still lacking, almost always you'll find religion there - Female Genital Mutilation, honor killings, family abuse (because of the powers vested upon the men !?), the hatred of people of other religion (often incorrectly mixed with racial profiling, as many of you probably can confirm).
Osho said and I sign with my 10 typing fingers below it - all religions start progressive. They are revolutions of the human mind. Explosions, which destroy the old and bring the new. Until they get organized and killed by their own followers.

There is a really nice statement on the difference b/n religion and spirituality in the new "Yoga Unveiled" movie....Well, you better see it, if you haven't :-)

This discussion has gone exactly the way it should, like a negotiation, narrowing the differences, so that the participants find some meeting points TOGETHER.
Mogambo drew attention to the evolution of Jesus Christ's teachings into the Vatican kingdom, of the teachings of the Vedas into the evils of caste based atrocities and of the great common sense of the Arabs ito Islamic fundamentalism. I will draw attention to nonreligious evolutions of a similar nature. Marxism to Naxalism and Maoism, Gandhism into dynastic rule based on the Gandhi name, popularity of films into a tendency to look for leadership only from the tinsel world, excellence in international sports necessarily getting at least vaguely tied to drinks, drugs or black money or all of them.

Mogambo and I can conclude that if everybody migrated to politically safe areas of the Himalayan slopes and concentrated on soul searching only, the world can be saved. Reductio ad absurdum. But we can also conclude sensibly that a section of humanity will always convert all good opportunities into messes, but the rest can do some good housekeeping and reduce the mess.

Thanks for some real soul-searching.
Regards. Partha.

Spiritualism can and should be practiced with the guidence of those, who have achieved. Not with organized religion. Those who achieve do not become (religious) leaders. And those who become - have not achieved. If I can misquote Tao Te Ching.
The communist countries did not make surveys :-). Especially so on religion and spirituality. There is however well established and peer reviewed data on the negative effect religion has on the moral values of a society - the most religious developed country (USA) has the highest rates of crime, STD, early pregnancies, murder etc, when compared with the least religious (France, Japan etc).

Hi Mogambo,

You are definitely a very interesting personality I like your sense of humor, if you may call it.

I do not completely agree that spiritualism can be practiced without dharmic guidance. However, religion is something that can shed blood.

Can you show me some statistics if there was any spiritual practice in the communist country, and if hard core communists ever practiced spiritual practice?

Regards,
AS

I have been following this discussion with interest. I have often wondered how and when did religion become such an important part of life. Religion is after all man-made and man is not perfect. Religion cannot hold the absolute truth. But I do understand that religion provides a point of reference in the journey of the seeker. It's more of a starting point. Some people get stuck at the starting point and never make the journey. But it helps others as a guiding light.

Since the middle ages when wars have been fought in the name of religion, it does want to make one stop and wonder. Is the problem with the religion or with the people that follow it? The answer is quite obvious as religion is man-made.

Mimi.

I don't agree with the last definition on religion. Yoga has structure around it and is not a religion. Also true for science.
Religion is that way of structuring of made up believes, which tells you "THIS IS THE TRUTH! Stop searching to the answer."
And not searching to the answer is committing of a suicide.
And it automathically tells you - it THIS is the TRUTH, the rest isn't!
But if a truth does not encompass Everything, it is not the Truth!

So yes, religions are bad - both for the societies (indeed - history speaks for itself) and the individual.
And please, don't start with "O, there are poor people, who need guidance in their lives and religion gives it!"
So much not true. I grew up in a communist country, without religious guidance and religious moral values. Things were much better then than now, when religion comes back in the mainstream.
If you do not like to read Osho (heard there are this kind of people :-), check "The God Delusion" or "God is not great". I am so happy that they were #1 and 2 bestsellers - make me hope that humanity may do the right change after all...

No need of religion.

Partha however is surprised a Mogambo's apparent objection to structure, rules etc.
I am sure he is not advocating anarchy, living as one pleases.
Even inanimate things and systems continue being there and continue to coexist with other things and systems, in some kind of equilibria, only because of 'structure and natural laws and rules'.
Regards. Partha.

Mogambo wants to practise yoga and spirituality. He is bound to benefit himself and others who come into contact with him.
There are persons who would like to subvert, rule over, exploit other people. If religion was a tool in their hands, they would use it. If they have only Marxism or drugs, they will use these. if they had none of these, they will invent things with which they can affect other people badly.
From the beginning of creation, there hsve been exploiters and victims.
If moral codes, ethics, song and dance, sculpture and architecture, language and literature can benefit by human activities, whether they are religious or not, why should you stop them? If you should, how on earth can you stop them?
History cannot be wished away, friend Mogambo. But to the good fortune of humanity, some persons are always using lessons from history to improve themselves and others.
Regards. Partha.

Hail mogambo...

How would mogambo suggest we wipe this 'evil' off the face of the earth?

A good (say 90) % of people in the world like to live by some socially sanctined codes of morality, instead of a 'jungle' (capitalist, or oherwise) where there is a 'might is right' free for all....

'Religion' however imperfect, fulfils that role, until the time that individuals can transcend this to move on / evolve to the practice of a regular spiritual (yogic or otherwise) path...

Might it not be enough to socially inhibit (or prohibit??) the foisting of this religion (or "My God") of one's own, on another (...i.e. "My God is better than "your God")?

Hail mogambo...

I was recently having a conversation with my friend and Tai Chi partner, Evgeny about a similar topic.
He was of the same opinion as you mogambo and I on the other hand wanted to impress upon him the need to qualify what "kind of religion" would actually fit the category you stated.

From my limited understanding, it seems that Dogma is a centerpiece of all organized religions. The organized religions of this world fall under the category of Abrahamic religions (such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism).

There is also another family of religion (actually not a good translation of the word Dharma) -- the Dharmic Traditions. Etymology of the word Dharma is "Dhr" and "ma" meaning, Uphold (Dhr) the Source or Mother (Ma) or Origin (Ma).

Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism all fall under the Dharmic category -- where their focus is on maintaining order and upholding the source (The Way, Tao). And everything in these religions deals with working on the individual and refining and polishing his/her knowledge and awareness to first reflect and then become the Source.

Perhaps you need to qualify what kind of religion needs to be either refined/updated or discarded. Dharmic systems are not the same as Abrahamic systems.

You are right, dear friend, in resorting to yogic practice and spirituality, when you find it does good to you, even without your having any religious affiliation. You are most welcome to your pursuit.
Some persons can proceed on such quests as individuals with great results to show.Some other persons may believe more in social interactions and could be happier with families, friends and things to do together as families and communities.
Some seekers do get connected to the idea of a super-being, an infinite being.
If you recommend that this can be done without rituals, you have a point. But people living in groups enjoy cultual things to do together, some of it religious.
Several thinkers like Mogambo are bothered by the wrongdoings perpetrated in the name of religious fundamentalism. They should understand that a section of humanity will use any handle, including religion, to further evil, further enmities, start disputes and sustain discords. Others can live in peace, with or without religion. Why blame religion?
Regards. Partha.