Edit: See also Jack Kerouac
Indians like Siddarameshwar and Nisargadatta were addicted to tobacco. Nisargadatta (who claims he was in the “highest state” and I have no reason to doubt it) died of throat cancer due to hardcore smoking of cloves. When pressed about his addiction he would say “When I showed up in this body I found it with certain habits and didn’t see any reason to interfere.”
I don't really get why this is. I'm not saying it's wrong. But it's only a couple pages into the Bible that you find Noah getting drunk and blacking out naked (Genesis 9). And this is someone who is trusted to hear the voice of God, know the future, and save humanity. Seems to be a pretty low bar for being 'good enough' for God.
I'd say that mainstream and powerful Christianities do have the effect the parent commenter noticed, especially in America. And to me, it's quite plain that that is a perversion of the message of grace that is central to the Gospel.
A rigid sacred text that claim things are one way or that something must be done someway will inevitably fail when reality shows that things are some other way or that the results of some other action are better.
After the events of January 6 at the capital (the "literal" coup attempt), "Democracy, our most sacred institution" quickly coalesced as a common sound bite across the mainstream media complex.
As religious people are reluctant to question the axioms of their religion (as a consequence of psychological conditioning, at least in part), I propose the same general phenomenon (and causes) exists with respect to "facts" and power structures within culture.
To be even more clear: I believe that "democracy", the flavors that are currently practised in this era, are highly illusory...and, I also believe that most people have ~"cognitive viruses" within their mind that activate when any criticism of democracy arises, plausible artifacts of which can be seen in massive quantities across social media conversations. /r/politcis is famous for this sort of thing, but on certain topics it is not difficult at all to find the same thing on HN.
For example McConnell inventing a rule from thin air that you can’t fill a scotus seat in an election year. Then cynically breaking his own “rule.” Or Trump insisting Mike Pence “can send the votes back to the states.” Or submitting “alternate” electors who would break the pledge to match their votes to the majority vote. Or install a DOJ puppet AG who would seize voting machines.
This has nothing to do with whether America should be a democracy or not. It’s all about whether we should normalize a toxic culture of scummy power jockeying.
One problem I have with claims, sincere as they may be, about "the" issue is that there are many, many thousands" of "the issues" in circulation. It's a lot like God(s): how shall we tell which "the one" is THE "the one" (is there only one?). And, I suspect the underlying epistemology/cognition of each resembles that which underlies religion more than a little.
> This has nothing to do with whether America should be a democracy or not. It’s all about whether we should normalize a toxic culture of scummy power jockeying.
I think it may be worth noting that for any given issue, whether it has "nothing/anything to do with" something else is often subjective (such as in this case), and also that the mind has a tendency to render subjective matters as objective at runtime (more so with some topics than others).
I am not opposed to democracy per se, I am opposed to fake democracy (or fake anything for that matter), where "fake" means approximately "what it says on the tin does not match the product inside"....kinda like the picture of a Big Mac on a poster vs what you get when you actually buy one.
I'm my no means a scholar of such matters but I don't get than impression of Christianity at all. From the concept of original sin, to the tale of Jesus kicking off in the temple, the embracement of man's flaws seem to me to be one of Christianity's biggest selling points.
Yes, it is true that the church often presents it this way. Which is odd, because the bible is almost always presenting the other case, that the person with the issue is the enlightened one.
For example, the bible lists 5 women who are in the geneology of Jesus. This includes a prostitute (Rahab), a Moabite (Ruth, and according to the bible marrying a moabite was punishable by death), and an adulteress (Bathsheba; she may have been innocent but this isn't clear).
Heck, even the idea of extending the blessing of God to the gentiles is sus. The gentiles are by definition unclean.
All of which could be seen as a way to highlight that "enlightenment" is due to the grace of god, not works of man. And yes, "enlightenment" means something very different in christianity vs buddhism.
I used to read Nisargadatta to try and get sober, but it didn't help. He seems to imply there's some deeper level of consciousness beyond just resting without thought or emotion in the present moment.
I found the teachings of Zen to much more helpful and in fact many Western therapies like DBT and Wise Mind are based on those principles.
Reading is just another kind of attachment. You have to practice, even and perhaps especially when it seems challenging and difficult. Most spiritual traditions are very clear on this, including yoga itself.
I’ve come to realize that all paths lead to the same state, including Christianity. Christian worship is a form of Bhakti. It’s all a matter of what fits your personality.
Those feelings are caused by attachment and craving. Learn to let go of your attachments; that's a big part of the "discipline" that's conducive to spiritual practice.