Spirituality vs Materialsim

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi rvsakhadeo,

Your point is very valid.

I once met DC personally at a seminar in Lausanne, at the IMD. (Institute for Management Development.) Even then, in the '90s, he was already an international celebrity. But his impression on me has been lasting - a peaceful and serene man.

Are you by any chance familiar with the Centre for Action and Contemp ...[text shortened]... based site striving for a deeper level of understanding and reconciliation between the faiths.

I will take a look at the site when I get back home, thanks !

Originally posted by googlefudge
Unfortunately reason is the very thing that you have to abandon to be a theist.

Well, that was why I mentioned this book - it is steeped in reasoned arguments from both sides.

As I said earlier, unfortunately I don't have it with me, and unfortunately I am not as eloquent as the writers, so maybe I started this thread a little prematurely and my have to put it on hold until next week, when I will pick one of DC's arguments and have you disect it.

Originally posted by FMF
Why did you read the thread then?

Why did you read five pages of the thread?

To tell you the truth, I was intrigued to see whether RJH would finally succumb to your relentless pressure and own up that, no, I'm sorry, you did not lie.

And you will also recall that I supported you and added my subtle hints that we were ALL waiting to see if he would, well, become reasonable.

So, yes, I admit that in THAT sense the thread provided a modicum of entertainment. Even though the outcome was not really that unexpected....

Let me therefore clarify what my gripe is in many threads. When one encounters a topic that has the promise to lead to an interesting discussion, this is often thwarted by evasions, denials, red herrings and finally personal abuse.

And actually I really like a good argument. We used to sit at dinner table with my adolescent kids and I would ask them (especially my son) to pick a subject and take a position. Then I will take an opposing view and let him defend his! I must hasten to add that my wife very seldom liked these discussions, because they could become quite heated.

(To answer googlefudge, the reason I keep coming back to the site is my curiosity to see if there is something interesting going on, and actually, sometimes there is, but those occasions are few and far between. If you check my records, you will see that I am a sporadic visitor. Sometimes, like now, I have been active for a few weeks, but then I get fed up again and disappear for a few years!

And yes, you are right when you say who the h*** am I to criticize a free forum! It's really no skin off anybody's nose what I think of it! So please remove that aspect from this thread and hopefully we can get down to a solid argument.)

😀

Originally posted by JS357
I say this because my initial take on the term materialism is ontological, in opposition to some sort of ontological idealism. I lean toward a sort of non-dualism.

But I suppose I need clarification if DC is speaking of materialism as attachment to material goods in opposition to some sort of higher mental attitude toward the good.

Let's just get to it. Lead by example.

The essence of the debate is about a totally materialistic world view (rejected by DC but proposed by his opponent) in which everything visible and invisible in the universe came about by natural processes which we know today, or whether there is room for, and maybe even evidence for, a non-materialistic, spiritual realm.

The reason why I thought this would be a good topic for debate is because it would bypass all the peripherals that distinguish the various and multiple expressions of that spirituality - all the different faiths and their specific idiosyncracies. If one can accept that there maybe a slight chance that there is such a thing as a spiritual realm, then the NEXT step would be to investigate how the various facets of its interpretation and expression differ from each other.

But, I have to admit that you caught me with my pants down. When I started this thread I thought I had the book with me; but I don't.

So I will ask for your indulgence and patience until next week when I can plagiarise from DC his opening argument for spirituality and throw that into the fray.

OK?

Originally posted by FMF
How does this book rank beside "Forbidden Archeology"?

Deepak,s books are about the spiritual essence that is all around us all of the time but not recognized, and Forbidden Archeology is about the truth of Archeology and its findings, and they are two different subjects and difficult to equate in the same critical analysis.

Deepak,s books are not the Vedas so there will be a very big short fall in knowledge from Deepak but he will fill the gap where people are only novice.

Deepak is for the novice only [and everyone is a novice] so let everyone read his books and when they want real knowledge and the truth of truths they can go to the Vedas particularly Srimad Bhagavatam by Srila Prubhupada,18 volumes.

If someone stays with Deepak and only Deepak they will ultimately only become mislead in their spiritual life and not make any real advancement in their self realization.

Originally posted by FMF
What a bleak view of the world and of humanity you have! Good grief. In the previous post you claimed the book in question helped you arrive at "a whole new and fresh way of perceiving the world and life". And yet you seem so utterly pessimistic. Personally I am much more positive and optimistic and much more impressed with the human spirit than you seem to be. ...[text shortened]... s it inure you to all the "wretched lives" that you perceive are being lived all around you?

You are certainly a piece of work and your twisting words is alive and well.

I have never said the book helped me to have a fresh and new outlook at all but said that it will help others have a fresh and new outlook.

Please quote others correctly.

And the rest of your post is a wrong interpretation of mine, done so deliberately as usual.

Please put honest thought into what you say in the future and stop trying to colour everything black purposely, because its what you did with Dasa as well in every post he submitted.

Originally posted by CalJust
The essence of the debate is about a totally materialistic world view (rejected by DC but proposed by his opponent) in which everything visible and invisible in the universe came about by natural processes which we know today, or whether there is room for, and maybe even evidence for, a non-materialistic, spiritual realm.

The reason why I thought this wou ...[text shortened]... plagiarise from DC his opening argument for spirituality and throw that into the fray.

OK?

Eagerly waiting for that. [opening argument for spirituality] and could you make it a new opening thread when you do.

Originally posted by poker87
Deepak,s books are about the spiritual essence that is all around us all of the time but not recognized, and Forbidden Archeology is about the truth of Archeology and its findings, and they are two different subjects and difficult to equate in the same critical analysis.

Deepak,s books are not the Vedas so there will be a very big short fall in knowledge ...[text shortened]... ome mislead in their spiritual life and not make any real advancement in their self realization.

...Forbidden Archeology is about the truth of Archeology and its findings...

No it isn't. It's a load of twaddle dressed up as archaeology in order to extract money from gullible idiots.

Originally posted by CalJust
The essence of the debate is about a totally materialistic world view (rejected by DC but proposed by his opponent) in which everything visible and invisible in the universe came about by natural processes which we know today, or whether there is room for, and maybe even evidence for, a non-materialistic, spiritual realm.

The reason why I thought this wou ...[text shortened]... plagiarise from DC his opening argument for spirituality and throw that into the fray.

OK?

The essence of the debate is about a totally materialistic world view (rejected by DC but proposed by his opponent) in which everything visible and invisible in the universe came about by natural processes which we know today, or whether there is room for, and maybe even evidence for, a non-materialistic, spiritual realm.

Don't bother responding further to me on that debate. I think it is a bogus debate. I don't know of any scientist or anyone at all who would debate in favor of "everything visible and invisible in the universe came about by natural processes which we know today."

So that argument is a straw man. I will (charitably) assume it is not stated correctly because you don't have the book in front of you.

Originally posted by poker87
I have never said the book helped me to have a fresh and new outlook at all but said that it will help others have a fresh and new outlook.

So you concede that you don't have a fresh and new outlook at all, but that others do or might do, especially those who have read this book, even if it didn't have that effect on you?

Originally posted by JS357
I don't know of any scientist or anyone at all who would debate in favor of "everything visible and invisible in the universe came about by natural processes which we know today."

Please humour me - what part or parts of that statement is so ridiculous?

Is it the visible and invisible?
...or the universe
...or the natural processes
....or the know today?

This is not a frivolous or pedantic question, I really want to know what you mean.

Originally posted by CalJust
The essence of the debate is about a totally materialistic world view (rejected by DC but proposed by his opponent) in which everything visible and invisible in the universe came about by natural processes which we know today, or whether there is room for, and maybe even evidence for, a non-materialistic, spiritual realm.

The reason why I thought this wou ...[text shortened]... plagiarise from DC his opening argument for spirituality and throw that into the fray.

OK?

It is my growing suspicion that scientific materialism leads inexorably toward a Cartesian dualism and that a Cartesian dualism leads inexorably toward a cultural materialism, or, more specifically, a culture of conspicuous consumption. Given that our spiritual beliefs have a hard time keeping abreast of advances in scientific knowledge, it may be that making certain allowances for spiritualism makes up for in utility what it lacks in "absolute truth". Perhaps it is as Jack Nicholson once opined that, "We can't handle the truth."

Originally posted by CalJust
Sometimes I really wonder where the regular posters (FMF, twhitehead, RJH, googlefudge, RC, et al) get the time to post in so many threads so often - do they sit in front of their laptop all day?? Or probably stay online with their Blackberry or iPhone! I can't manage more than two threads at a time, three tops.

But only rarely is a thread really interest ...[text shortened]... was just wondering, has anybody else read this book? What did you think of it??

Well, I haven't read the book, but I have read similar literature, so I think I would be somewhat familiar with some of it's contents.

I get on here around an hour a day because I'm a single dad, and my kids school is just across the road. Thats my "job", being on the pension, but even the government people tell to just stay put and look after my kid (ie not to try to get maybe a part-time job), and these people are suppose to hassle me to getting work...


Anyway... I often wonder how some of my opponents move so quickly and so often- as if they were glued to their pc's, but hey, you cant fault people for moving quickly. But you do wonder what kind of lives people have.

At the moment I have like one friend within a 250km radius. Maybe two. But really I am just a "home-body" and have to be for a while yet 🙂

But practising "spirituality" , which I have been doing for some years now, you tend to find that you "rub" up against materialists quite often. (Some of this is because of where I live and the conservative nature of the politics here).

Basically it means that my spirituality comes first, and that any work or any activity I may engage in has to meet with my "spiritual requirements" , otherwise I go schizophrenic. But I've worked all that out. It took a while, but now at least I know what I can and cant do.

Basically I am sickened nearly everyday for the amount of waste that materialists discard everyday.
I think there needs to be a balance between "materialists" and "spiritualists" in any given society.
I often wonder why I ended up here, but then I am reminded : It's prolly to balance up the numbers with the materialists.

Cheers for the OP, I really believe that if I were born about 30 years earlier I would have had several beatings and possibly murdered just for talking the truth to people.
Peace

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I read his 'Seven Spiritual Laws' back in the nineties, can't remember much about it now other than that I enjoyed it immensely and it set me off reading a lot about eastern spirituality.

Sounds good, cat. After all, with sufficient reading you find that you dont need any books to back up your views and feelings.
I find it incredible that grown men stick to the bible like some kind of mantra.
I always thought of "spirituality" as amazingly simple in theory and quite a slog when practising it.
You can practice spirituality while you work. There are opportunities everyady to learn.
The best moments of my life are like when I am in between polarities. (For example flying along in a car full of people on acid and then going down a hill and going UP another small hill, and the feeling you get when gravity ceases to have any affect on your body , when you are in the air a bit, right there!! The truth is in that "middle way", as buddha pointed out.)
Of course my example is a bit extreme, but it really comes back to your own interaction with "life" as to what you get out of it. The "middle way" can be expressed in many examples, but you always need to be the co-author of your,err "trips" , to get any meaning out if them. and even then you cant really communicate to anyone with any clarity. Like trying to recall a dream. "You just had to be there." .But kudos to anyone that dares to try 🙂

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I submit a few cautionary words both for Caljust and avalanchethecat. Eastern mystics had always a hold on young impressionable minds, all over the world. These self styled Yogis made a pile of cash and and caused Hinduism to lose all standing and name among the spiritual seekers. Be aware of a Guru who makes möney out of his disciples and fans. From bein ...[text shortened]... o try to acquire a halo of a Guru. His advice column appears to give too slick answers at times.

Yes, but the "self-styled yogis" have done a lot of good too.
Things needed to be shaken up, and I guess you may recall the now famous/infamous "conversion" of the Beatles as one of the stand-out points in the history of "eastern myticism/hinduism" in the western world. 🙂
Happy days 🙂