Understanding the religious mindset

[seeds]

_______

I think that the religious mindset dilemma...

(or any rigid mindset based on one's interpretation of reality)

...can be summed up in the problem portrayed in the "blind men and the elephant" image...



Many humans latch-on to a particular interpretation of reality (via brainwashing or choice) without being able to see that what they believe may only be a representation of one minor aspect of a far greater whole.
_______

[Belinda]

_______

I think that the religious mindset dilemma...

(or any rigid mindset based on one's interpretation of reality)

...can be summed up in the problem portrayed in the "blind men and the elephant" image...



Many humans latch-on to a particular interpretation of reality (via brainwashing or choice) without being able to see that what they believe may only be a representation of one minor aspect of a far greater whole.
_______

I try to be the zoological manikin who stands a lot further away from the elephant and so gets a larger perspective on the whole animal.

[Walker]

_______

I think that the religious mindset dilemma...

(or any rigid mindset based on one's interpretation of reality)

...can be summed up in the problem portrayed in the "blind men and the elephant" image...



Many humans latch-on to a particular interpretation of reality (via brainwashing or choice) without being able to see that what they believe may only be a representation of one minor aspect of a far greater whole.
_______

With his heightened sense of smell due to blindness, rope man obviously has no choice about his reality, or else he would move because with his human access to reasoning, he should be able to figure out what's coming.

[Walker]

In Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, Trugpa Rinpoche says, “Therefore, in dealing with this subject we are not condemning or attempting to eliminate our ego-psychology; we are purely acknowledging it, seeing it as it is. In fact, the understanding of ego is the foundation of Buddhism. So let us look at how ego develops.”

Well, that's a hoot! This Trugpa Rinpoche, wooga booga guru, learned is mystic insight from Freud? He invented the word.

...and that does not say what ego is, because no one who uses that word knows what they mean by it. WHAT IS THE EGO?

Ah ... the influence of Age.

Your enquiry began with a misattributed quote. Never-the-less, since the topic of that misattributed quote is Trungpa Rinpoche, who coined and developed the term “spiritual materialism,” then it is only fitting that he answer your questions on your topics of interest, with my help in selecting his words from the referenced work. Offhand, I’d reason that an old man who sneers at wisdom has led a life in search of what’s easily within grasp, which is purely a gratuitous remark seeing as how old men also know that antagonism is but one method of elicitation, however a probe does not a pattern make.

Very good on word origins, although you could likely take it further toward Freud’s source if so inclined. However, what’s relevant about the word is what it topically means, that is, what it means to you in relation to the topic at hand, which in case you missed it, is Lacewing’s implicit enquiry, simply for the sake of conversation, into the principle of spiritual materialism, as it relates to religion.

Your portal of interest is obviously this concept of "ego," and as Trungpa Rinpoche kindly advises, he begins by taking a look at the development of ego.

You begin with a sneer. How about that.

Have you a question that I can research for you in Trunga Rinpoche’s work? An advice ... unless you're at the bottom of a collapsed condo, shrieking demands are rather inappropriate, and shall be accordingly incorporated.

Or, are you seeking the humble, personal opinion of a nobody? If so, I suggest that ego is either enslaver, or servant ... perhaps Freud also had the same true, relevant insight, however at this stage of the big game, I don't give a hoot what that coke head said.

Please, continue …

[RCSaunders]

In Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, Trugpa Rinpoche says, “Therefore, in dealing with this subject we are not condemning or attempting to eliminate our ego-psychology; we are purely acknowledging it, seeing it as it is. In fact, the understanding of ego is the foundation of Buddhism. So let us look at how ego develops.”

Well, that's a hoot! This Trugpa Rinpoche, wooga booga guru, learned is mystic insight from Freud? He invented the word.

...and that does not say what ego is, because no one who uses that word knows what they mean by it. WHAT IS THE EGO?

Ah ... the influence of Age.

Your enquiry began with a misattributed quote. Never-the-less, since the topic of that misattributed quote is Trungpa Rinpoche, who coined and developed the term “spiritual materialism,” then it is only fitting that he answer your questions on your topics of interest, with my help in selecting his words from the referenced work. Offhand, I’d reason that an old man who sneers at wisdom has led a life in search of what’s easily within grasp, which is purely a gratuitous remark seeing as how old men also know that antagonism is but one method of elicitation, however a probe does not a pattern make.

Very good on word origins, although you could likely take it further toward Freud’s source if so inclined. However, what’s relevant about the word is what it topically means, that is, what it means to you in relation to the topic at hand, which in case you missed it, is Lacewing’s implicit enquiry, simply for the sake of conversation, into the principle of spiritual materialism, as it relates to religion.

Your portal of interest is obviously this concept of "ego," and as Trungpa Rinpoche kindly advises, he begins by taking a look at the development of ego.

You begin with a sneer. How about that.

Have you a question that I can research for you in Trunga Rinpoche’s work? An advice ... unless you're at the bottom of a collapsed condo, shrieking demands are rather inappropriate, and shall be accordingly incorporated.

Or, are you seeking the humble, personal opinion of a nobody? If so, I suggest that ego is either enslaver, or servant ... perhaps Freud also had the same true, relevant insight, however at this stage of the big game, I don't give a hoot what that coke head said.

Please, continue …

That's a lot of explanation to evade the question of what you mean when you use the word, "ego." You are not obliged to explain what you mean, and if you don't choose to, that's fine, but why not just say, "I'm not going to explain it," or, "I don't know what it means." Of course, you don't have to do that either, in which case I'll have to draw my own conclusion that you just don't have a meaning when you use the word.

[attofishpi]

_______

I think that the religious mindset dilemma...

(or any rigid mindset based on one's interpretation of reality)

....such as atheism.

...can be summed up in the problem portrayed in the "blind men and the elephant" image...



Many humans latch-on to a particular interpretation of reality (via brainwashing or choice) without being able to see that what they believe may only be a representation of one minor aspect of a far greater whole.

....absolutely atheism, is THE most limiting comprehension upon intelligent minds, so here is my little modification of your image:-

[henry quirk]

You could change atheist to *spiritualist-humanist and it would still work.




*that particular brand of crazy person that bleeds for people (and animals) while not actually doin' diddly ('cept burin' sage, huggin' trees, etc.) and preaches about evolving and energy...I think all that sage-burnin' done bent their brains

[seeds]

_______

I think that the religious mindset dilemma...

(or any rigid mindset based on one's interpretation of reality)

....such as atheism.

...can be summed up in the problem portrayed in the "blind men and the elephant" image...



Many humans latch-on to a particular interpretation of reality (via brainwashing or choice) without being able to see that what they believe may only be a representation of one minor aspect of a far greater whole.

....absolutely atheism, is THE most limiting comprehension upon intelligent minds, so here is my little modification of your image:-

That's a good addition, atto.

The problem with atheists is that just because they have managed to recognize that the silly anthropomorphic (humanoid) depictions of God - handed down to us from ancient minds - is nonsense, they mistakenly believe that they can officially rule-out the existence of a (transcendent) living intelligence being responsible for the creation of the universe.

Unfortunately, they have settled upon the "chance hypothesis," which is infinitely more ridiculous than the theistic hypothesis.

Atheism and its sister, materialism, are just shining examples of how delusional "mindsets" are not limited to just the theists.
_______

[seeds]

_______

I think that the religious mindset dilemma...

(or any rigid mindset based on one's interpretation of reality)

...can be summed up in the problem portrayed in the "blind men and the elephant" image...



Many humans latch-on to a particular interpretation of reality (via brainwashing or choice) without being able to see that what they believe may only be a representation of one minor aspect of a far greater whole.
_______

I try to be the zoological manikin who stands a lot further away from the elephant and so gets a larger perspective on the whole animal.

Yes, Belinda. Any true philosopher worth her salt should adopt that attitude, which is simply an alternate version of the proverbial "seeing the forest for the trees" approach to how one discerns reality.

The problem is that there is no way of knowing if you are truly observing the "whole forest" from the "highest" vantage point, or simply standing on an elevated (cloud-veiled) ridge where you have latched-on to yet another tree that somehow fools you into believing that you are above the forest.
_______

[attofishpi]

Yes, Belinda. Any true philosopher worth her salt should adopt that attitude, which is simply an alternate version of the proverbial "seeing the forest for the trees" approach to how one discerns reality.

The problem is that there is no way of knowing if you are truly observing the "whole forest" from the "highest" vantage point, or simply standing on an elevated (cloud-veiled) ridge where you have latched-on to yet another tree that somehow fools you into believing that you are above the forest.
_______

Ya, and people can't see Christ for the Churches.

[Lacewing]

I think that the religious mindset dilemma...

(or any rigid mindset based on one's interpretation of reality)

...can be summed up in the problem portrayed in the "blind men and the elephant" image...

Great point!

And yes, it applies to any rigid mindset... such as anything that someone does/thinks religiously or in an addicted or hypnotic manner.

[Walker]

Well, that's a hoot! This Trugpa Rinpoche, wooga booga guru, learned is mystic insight from Freud? He invented the word.

...and that does not say what ego is, because no one who uses that word knows what they mean by it. WHAT IS THE EGO?

Ah ... the influence of Age.

Your enquiry began with a misattributed quote. Never-the-less, since the topic of that misattributed quote is Trungpa Rinpoche, who coined and developed the term “spiritual materialism,” then it is only fitting that he answer your questions on your topics of interest, with my help in selecting his words from the referenced work. Offhand, I’d reason that an old man who sneers at wisdom has led a life in search of what’s easily within grasp, which is purely a gratuitous remark seeing as how old men also know that antagonism is but one method of elicitation, however a probe does not a pattern make.

Very good on word origins, although you could likely take it further toward Freud’s source if so inclined. However, what’s relevant about the word is what it topically means, that is, what it means to you in relation to the topic at hand, which in case you missed it, is Lacewing’s implicit enquiry, simply for the sake of conversation, into the principle of spiritual materialism, as it relates to religion.

Your portal of interest is obviously this concept of "ego," and as Trungpa Rinpoche kindly advises, he begins by taking a look at the development of ego.

You begin with a sneer. How about that.

Have you a question that I can research for you in Trunga Rinpoche’s work? An advice ... unless you're at the bottom of a collapsed condo, shrieking demands are rather inappropriate, and shall be accordingly incorporated.

Or, are you seeking the humble, personal opinion of a nobody? If so, I suggest that ego is either enslaver, or servant ... perhaps Freud also had the same true, relevant insight, however at this stage of the big game, I don't give a hoot what that coke head said.

Please, continue …

That's a lot of explanation to evade the question of what you mean when you use the word, "ego." You are not obliged to explain what you mean, and if you don't choose to, that's fine, but why not just say, "I'm not going to explain it," or, "I don't know what it means." Of course, you don't have to do that either, in which case I'll have to draw my own conclusion that you just don't have a meaning when you use the word.

No, that's not much explanation, which invalidates the rest of what you wrote.

What you did is called reasoning from an invalid premise. I just called it that. You can call it that, too.

However, it does end explanation which by your false reckoning is already too long, cause you know, why waste my time on a self-appointed elevator inspector?

Plus, your attitude sucks.

You are unworthy.

[Walker]

Trungpa Rinpoche transmitted some clear insights about the corruption of the religious mindset with an address called, "spiritual materialism."

Makes sense.

He said that when ego becomes the spiritual advisor, then spiritual materialism is the result.

[RCSaunders]

Ah ... the influence of Age.

Your enquiry began with a misattributed quote. Never-the-less, since the topic of that misattributed quote is Trungpa Rinpoche, who coined and developed the term “spiritual materialism,” then it is only fitting that he answer your questions on your topics of interest, with my help in selecting his words from the referenced work. Offhand, I’d reason that an old man who sneers at wisdom has led a life in search of what’s easily within grasp, which is purely a gratuitous remark seeing as how old men also know that antagonism is but one method of elicitation, however a probe does not a pattern make.

Very good on word origins, although you could likely take it further toward Freud’s source if so inclined. However, what’s relevant about the word is what it topically means, that is, what it means to you in relation to the topic at hand, which in case you missed it, is Lacewing’s implicit enquiry, simply for the sake of conversation, into the principle of spiritual materialism, as it relates to religion.

Your portal of interest is obviously this concept of "ego," and as Trungpa Rinpoche kindly advises, he begins by taking a look at the development of ego.

You begin with a sneer. How about that.

Have you a question that I can research for you in Trunga Rinpoche’s work? An advice ... unless you're at the bottom of a collapsed condo, shrieking demands are rather inappropriate, and shall be accordingly incorporated.

Or, are you seeking the humble, personal opinion of a nobody? If so, I suggest that ego is either enslaver, or servant ... perhaps Freud also had the same true, relevant insight, however at this stage of the big game, I don't give a hoot what that coke head said.

Please, continue …

That's a lot of explanation to evade the question of what you mean when you use the word, "ego." You are not obliged to explain what you mean, and if you don't choose to, that's fine, but why not just say, "I'm not going to explain it," or, "I don't know what it means." Of course, you don't have to do that either, in which case I'll have to draw my own conclusion that you just don't have a meaning when you use the word.

No, that's not much explanation, which invalidates the rest of what you wrote.

What you did is called reasoning from an invalid premise. I just called it that. You can call it that, too.

However, it does end explanation which by your false reckoning is already too long, cause you know, why waste my time on a self-appointed elevator inspector?

Plus, your attitude sucks.

You are unworthy.

I'm really sorry you feel that way. I was just trying to give you an opportunity to explain your view.

Don't worry about. I'll live with it. Thanks for the help!

[attofishpi]

I think that the religious mindset dilemma...

(or any rigid mindset based on one's interpretation of reality)

...can be summed up in the problem portrayed in the "blind men and the elephant" image...

Great point!

And yes, it applies to any rigid mindset... such as anything that someone does/thinks religiously or in an addicted or hypnotic manner.

Including short sighted mindsets - ATHEISM.