|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 06 2008 : 8:43:45 PM
|
Hello Everyone,
This question is basically theoretical but I still have a desire to have it answered.
"Why the inclusion of the word Abundance in Samyama?"
from my perspective that word seems to imply that Abundance is part of our primal nature as humans. I don't quite understand this and in fact almost DISagree with it. I understand why we would include all the other words but Abundance seems to imply the basic human need for "more" and I have always viewed that as a flaw in human nature. I don't understand why we would exasperate a flaw in Samyama. Am I WRONG in seeing the basic need in human nature for more as a flaw?
Thanks for any input.
Namaste,
CarsonZi |
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 06 2008 : 9:41:50 PM
|
| Basically what I mean is "Wouldn't it be more beneficail to use a word like "Contentedness" or a word that means to be content with yourself and what you are, instead of saying something that highlights the constant human desire for MORE?" |
 |
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Sep 06 2008 : 9:43:55 PM
|
If there is abundance...why would you need more?
Abundance is an affirmative, or positive word which denotes a positive state of being; a receiver of 'plenty.' An abundant person also takes joy in the abundance of another, and is not jealous or acting in a way in which says "there isn't enough for all of us." Many people find it easy to celebrate their own abundance, but really struggle with celebrating someone else's bounty without quietly saying to themselves "I wish it was me." The result of such a poor attitude brings selfishness, want, and scarcity into focus, and we are no longer celebrating. Instead we are claiming to the universe there is some manner of injustice taking place, and that we are not all entitled to the bounty the happens upon us. Thus, our focus changes from abundance to scarcity, and the abundance that is ours to claim, eludes our grasp.
...extracted from www.nomoremoney.com |
Edited by - machart on Sep 06 2008 9:57:08 PM |
|
|
|
brother neil
USA
752 Posts |
Posted - Sep 06 2008 : 10:13:52 PM
|
this is my take on it, I could be wrong
In al the words used in samyama you are looking to expand in these words/meanings from the inside out. By saying abundance you are not just asking to recive abundance, you are expanding in abundance, if you expand in abundance then your expansion will lead you to realize your abundance. By realizing your abundance you may realize that you have a lot and in turn can give a lot. In time you may be so appreciative of your abunadance that you will want to share it so much, because you recognize that you yourself are abundant. that you may have less matirial things and be cool with that.
What if you dont have abundance? if you dont hav an abundance of love how can you give love? If you dont have an abundance of radiance, how can you shine through the darkest of days? if you are not abundantly unified with others, how can express your unity to others. If you are not abundant in health how can you share health. if you are not abundant in stregth then how can you be strong enough to help others when they are weak. If you are not abundant If your wisdom is not abundant how can you share wisdom? if your not abundant in inner sensuality how can you share that with others. If you are not abundant in lightness of air, how can you show others how to flow freely? Thanks for posing your question I was in the moment when answering.
take care
neil
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 06 2008 : 10:58:42 PM
|
Thanks Machart and Tubeseeker for you input.
Machart...I understood what you are saying in your post before posing my question. I understand that the reason Abundance is included in Samyama because it is supposed to be positive and an affirmation of what we should be: Abundantly happy. But to me it seems, and you even eluded to it in your post by saying "...reciever or plenty" Abundance often denotes a material layer of consciousness. Plenty CAN mean "plenty of happiness" but most often these days is associated with"plenty of stuff" which is the opposite of positive and ends up being completely negative as it leads to what you said....focussing on NOT having what others do. Hence the reason I said "wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the word Contentedness instead?"
Tubeseeker...really enjoyed reading your post. And basically what I just said above is still what I would say to you. I understand that Abundance can mean "Abundance of love, radiance, unity...." but usually ends up meaning "Abundance of STUFF", maybe including love radiance unity etc etc, but also including the material aspects as well. So wouldn't it be more advantageous to use a word like Contentedness to help reiterate to ourselves that we should be content with our current level of love, radiance, unity etc etc. Instead of using a word that implies a continued need for more using a word to denote the joy of enjoying who and what you already are. Does this make any sense? |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2008 : 08:42:50 AM
|
Hi CarsonZi,
If you have abundant inner silence you will feel content. And perhaps that inner silence helps you to perceive that abundance is ever present, regardless of the situation.
On the material level, if people were not motivated by acquisitiveness, what kind of world would we have? To me, it is good to want stuff. Good things happen as a result of wanting stuff. You often learn good things in the process of acquiring stuff. Acquiring stuff can be done in a win-win fashion as opposed to a win-lose way.
My understanding is that you penetrate as deeply into inner silence as you can during your meditation period. Then you release the samyama sutras into the silence. The silence knows what is the best way for these qualities to manifest in your life and brings about that manifestation without any conscious effort on your part.
One of the changes occuring in this area might be the evolution of aquisitiveness from win-lose style to win-win style.
To me their is nothing wrong with wanting more. It becomes a matter of purifying and channeling that basic urge into positive directions that benefit everyone and perhaps samyama helps us to unconsciously do that.
How that then expresses itself in your life is totally individual. For Ramakrishna, it was abundant Bhakti and the aquisition of total God consciousness.
But, on a more mundane level, abundance does grease the wheels of daily existance. 
That is how I see it at present.
Best, yb |
Edited by - yogibear on Sep 07 2008 08:56:05 AM |
|
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2008 : 10:19:45 AM
|
CarsonZi...Don't know if this answers your question, but I really love this parable so decided to post it since Jesus refers to abundance.
Matthew 13
1The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
2And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
3And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2008 : 4:22:56 PM
|
Thank you Yogibear and Machart for continuing to discuss this with me. I'm sorry though I still completely disagree with you both. This is why:
Abundance is NOT SUSTAINABLE. Aquiring more stuff is what is going to wipe humanity off of the face of the planet. It is funny that you quoted Jesus Machart, because I think his religion is the main cause of this view in life being so worldwide, and I completely disagree with it. It is teachings like what you posted above that make us think "Abundance" is a good thing. And I don't think it is at all. About 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent "our" culture, the one main culture on Earth, no seperation between East and West in This culture, we started a "new" style of living based on a style of agriculture that would become to be known as "Totalitarian Agriculture".(Google it) Wipe out everything that is not human food or conducive to human food. With this "revolution" we started a population explosion. With that population explosion we needed more space. This started a trend of growing war, crime, etc.etc. which had never existed before. Everything before this time is considered "PREhistory" by us and is "irrelevant" to most. (Even though humanity had existed for 3 million years before without any one culture overrunning the planet, and we could do well to learn from these PREhistory cultures) This growing agricultural and religious trend spread worldwide up to the present day, where we have what I would refer to as a "Totalitarian CULTURE", which could be described as a culture that will stop at nothing to have an ABUNDANCE of everything. Our culture is exclusive in thinking that the "world was made for us (humans) and we were MADE to conquer and rule the world". (Daniel Quinn in "Ishmael" "The Story of B" and "My Ishmael") (basically we are fundamentally flawed and need to be "SAVED", the commonality between all "world" religions) And we think that the world can just keep taking all that we continue to do to it/take from it. It is thinking/beliefs like this that will exterminate humanity from the planet. We don't need ABUNDANCE. We need to be SATISFIED WITH WHAT IS. And continue our practices. Putting the word Abundance in the Samyama list only exaserbates the problem. Yogibear you said "If you have abundant inner silence you will feel content"...then why not use the words "inner silence" instead? I think that I will have a very hard time using that word in Samyama. (I have not yet really started adding the Samyama practice on to my daily SBP and meditation routine. Am about to and that is why I am asking this question.)
I thank you very much for continuing this discussion with me, but I'm afraid that my world view is one that cannot use the word Abundance in Samyama. I will use "Inner Silence" or "Contentedness". Please feel free to continue this thread as I am very happy to discuss my world view and would love for someone to show me exactly why Abundance is used in this sutra set, but as of now , I still have a problem with it and will not use it. Perhaps Yogani could explain why you chose to include the word Abundance in the sutra set?
Namaste,
CarsonZi |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2008 : 5:52:17 PM
|
Hi CarsonZi:
It is the nature of life to evolve, grow and become abundant. It is happening all around us in nature, yes? It is the nature of inner silence to expand in this way, human foibles notwithstanding.
So when we use the sutra "abundance," it is to promote the natural process of life emanating from within stillness. This does not necessarily mean more egoic expansion of human endeavors, or whatever we might imagine. There is a much larger divine agenda bubbling within stillness that is morally self-regulating and in tune with nature.
The worth of a sutra will not be settled in mind by intellectualizing the pros or cons of abundance, or anything else. In stillness it will always manifest for the best, on the side of evolution. That is why the abundance sutra is there, balanced and rounded out by the rest of the sutras on the list. It is not about making value judgments. It is about moving inner silence through a range of channels, purifying them over time. Then all of our desires and actions will be in harmony with divine purpose, even as we go about our normal daily business.
In the Samyama book the optional practice of doing samyama on obstructions to enlightenment is introduced (p68), utilizing sutras that are generally regarded to be very negative in meaning. Yet, by releasing these sutras in stillness, we are purifying the channels that are producing the negative outcomes associated with them -- dissolving those obstructions.
Abundance does not usually fit into that category (as an obstruction), but if it did (as you are suggesting in this case), it would not make any difference. The outcome would be the same, the removal of obstructions and the promotion of evolutionary abundance in all of nature, including in humankind.
Interestingly, one of the best ways to mitigate the non-evolutionary pursuit of abundance by human beings is to do samyama on abundance!
That is how inner silence works when expressing through purifying nervous systems -- it takes all intentions and illuminates them from within, so the outcome will always be divine. Samyama is a powerful means for accelerating the process (after deep meditation), not so much for the specifics of the sutras themselves, but in general so all of our intentions will be naturally illuminated, and we won't have to fear so much about negative outcomes anymore. And as we purify ourselves, we are purifying everyone. It is outpouring divine love...
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2008 : 8:14:29 PM
|
Hi Yogani,
I understand what you are saying, especially in saying that it would not make any difference to the final outcome whether or not Abundance is viewed as positive or negative. But when you say that "It is the nature of life to evolve, grow and become abundant. It is happening all around us in nature, yes?" I disagree. The earth is LOSING more then 250 species everyday! It USED to be natural to evolve into abundance until "our" culture decided that "we" (humans) were meant to conquer and rule the world. NOW things are not evolving the way they should because of "our" views that it is "natural" to evolve into an OVERabundance of everything for humankind alone. And that it was MEANT to be this way.
When you say "So when we use the sutra "abundance," it is to promote the natural process of life emanating from within stillness" I STILL have to disagree. I think that the REAL natural process of life emanating from within stillness is to be content with where we are at the current moment. THAT is natural. I'm sorry to be so arguementative, this is really not my nature nowadays, but I am about to start adding Samyama practice onto my daily procedure but when reading the sutras Abundance really did NOT ring true with me. In fact it wrang very wrong to me. It struck a very UNnatural chord within me. Maybe it is just me and where I am at in my life, but I find the word Abundance to be the characteristic of all that is wrong with us as human beings.
Namaste,
CarsonZi |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2008 : 9:53:38 PM
|
CarsonZi, I've had a quick look at 'Totalitarian Agriculture' and Daniel Quinn at Wikipedia. There is the possiblity that Wikipedia is misrepresenting his philosophy, but I can say that I don't agree with what I see.
Basically Carson, what you're looking at there is not history, not science, not philosophy, but rather a form of politics dressing up as the above. The basic problems with the stories presented by these kind of political philosophies are (i) oversimplification and (ii) demonization. These factors are distorting the story that is being presented.
Quinn attributes this particular style of agriculture to a single culture, which he has dubbed the "Takers" and describes totalitarian agriculture as originating in Near East with an agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago.
There's a demon market out there Carson. Demons 'sell', whether the payoff is direct material wealth or the promotion of political causes. Quinn is onto the 'Takers'. But demon-identification and over-simplification, being factors of extremist thinking, do not advance society, they retard it.
I won't argue against the picture of 'Totalitarian Agriculture' here -- I simply believe I have better things to be doing, just like I don't like to argue against radical feminism any more. I'll just call politics, over-simplification and demonization and leave it at that.
I may sound sharp, but I am not angry or disrespectful, I assure you.
By all means stick to your opinion until or unless you are convinced otherwise.
|
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 08 2008 : 12:14:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Maybe it is just me and where I am at in my life, but I find the word Abundance to be the characteristic of all that is wrong with us as human beings.
Hi CarsonZi:
Well, anyone might be offended by any word, depending on what it means to them at a point in time, but I can assure you that the words as we use them in samyama have nothing to do with negative outcomes. They are universal in stillness and do not involve value judgments or the furtherance of discordant conditions. It is just the opposite. And, as I said, if a word is emotionally charged as obstruction or disharmony, doing samyama with it will be equally for the good, if not more so due to the emotional content.
But if you just can't stand "abundance" and it grates on your nerves, then leave it out (until later ). There is no point fighting with it. Of course, I can't predict the effect of leaving it out, or sutra substitutions, so it will be some research, and that may not be an ideal place to start with samyama. Sutra research is only recommended for well-established practitioners. Before going much further with redesigning samyama, I suggest you read the Samyama book for more detailed coverage of all this. Then you will have the best information we can offer at present, and it will be up to you.
Just to put some perspective on your concern, a number of sutras, both in the AYP system and in Patanjali's yoga sutras, could theoretically be judged to be equally destructive as "abundance," and used to further humankind's mischief. So, this kind of argument could be extended to other sutras that can expand human influence in the world, and therefore an argument against the advisability of samyama in general.
But is this really true? Not according to the experiences of many. The outcome of samyama using a balanced list of sutras is not related to personal interpretations and emotional coloring of specific sutras. Nor is it about extending human power in the world. It is about purifying the human nervous system broadly to be a much better vehicle for stillness in action in all areas, expressing itself as outpouring divine love and unity. Samyama is not about expanding human power. It is about expanding divine power, and that is in accordance with the creative principles originating within stillness and operating in nature everywhere.
All the best!
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 08 2008 : 01:35:16 AM
|
Hello Everyone and thank you for your continued conversations...
David...Do you think that "we" as a culture are currently living sustainably?
The Wikipedia site on "Totalitarian Agriculture" is in itself an oversimplification of the idea. I believe www.ishmael.org is a better representation of his, DQ's, ideas. I understand that there is no real benefit to demonizing anything, but neither is there any benefit to burying your head in the sand! There has to be a scientific inquiry into how we got to where we are (extincting more then 250 species a day) and an extrapolated solution based on this inquiry. This is what Daniel Quinn has done. It is a 3 book series which is why the Wikipedia site really is an oversimplification. This IS history, including PREhistory, (scientifically laid out as a fiction story, kind of like the Wilder book) and it dosen't get any more accurate than this I'm afraid. If you see his thesis as "demonization", then "Mother Culture" is still whispering softly in your ear; "Humans are different then animals, humans are special, the Earth was made for us, so it will therefor support us in our endeavors." Nothing could be further from the truth. The earth was NOT made for us, we are NOT special, and WE WILL EXTINCT OURSELVES SOON AT THE RATE WE ARE GOING. This is fact, not fiction.
I am not trying to preach DQ's thesis, as I personally think he gets close but doesn't quite complete it, but he is on the right track. To continue as we are, to continue enacting this story of "The world was made for Man and Man was made to rule and conquer the world" will kill us all. Head in the sand or not. I'm not trying to sharp, angry or disrespectful either, David, AYP has offered me a freedom I NEVER thought could be possible for me, and I am only at the beginning of the journey. But I have to question the things that don't ring true to my own inner silence. Up to this point I had had no reason to go against the AYP teachings exactly as they are laid out, but I don't feel I can include Abundance in my Samyama practice because the idea of needing an Abundance of anything is a flaw in my eyes. Wouldn't it be so much more powerful to be able to give from a state of NOTHINGNESS instead of first NEEDING abundance before being able to GIVE anything?
Yogani...Thank you for not taking offence to my questioning of your teachings and for being so civil when others might be offended and get defensive. This truely shows the inner silence that flows through you. A benefit to us all as you light the paths to our own enlightenments. Thank you.
In regards to your posting...I do not desire to "redesign samyama". I just find that all the other words have a very deep resonance within myself, but the word abundance....man, I can't even get myself to think the word in practice because it makes me feel SO terrible. It just seems so wrong. I know that I'm probably the first one to raise this issue, and everyone else LOVES the Abundance word in samyama, but to me, it's a complete no-no. Maybe you are right Yogani, and later on in life, the word abundance will resonate better within my soul during my samyama practice, and I know I am taking a bit of a gamble in changing your teachings, especially as I can personally attest to the power of using them as perscribed. But it is one word in the whole Samayama list, and I just don;t feel right using Abundance. I'm sorry to make such a big deal over 1 silly little word, but like I said, that word really seems like the characteristic of all that is wrong with humanity and it feels wrong to me to include it in my Samyama practices.
I won't try and argue my points anymore, as I feel like I may end up offending some people and that is the last thing I want to do. I was just throwing my feelings out there to see how others may feel about the use of the word Abundance in the Samyama sutras. My feelings don't have to be everyone's feelings and that is not my intention. I am not looking for converts. Just looking for healthy stimulating dialectic conversation. Please don't take any offence because none is meant. And no disrespect to the teachings Yogani, I just have the need to question everything I dedicate myself to, and AYP is something I have dedicated myself to, so I need to undestand it the best I can. Thank you for giving us all this opportunity. Much love.
Namaste,
CarsonZi |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Sep 08 2008 5:32:38 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 08 2008 : 10:14:31 AM
|
Hi Carson,
at no time did I think you were being disrespectful. No problems there at all.
From what I can see, in 'Ishmael', Quinn seems to be sacro-mytholigizing hunter-gatherer culture.
From Wikipedia:
Ishmael goes on to point out that by living in the hands of the gods, man is subject to the conditions under which evolution takes place. Australopithecus became Homo by living in the hands of the gods-- Man became man by living in the hands of the gods-- "by living the way the bushmen of Africa live; by living the way the Krenakarore of Brazil live... Not the way the Chicagoans live, not the way Londoners live."
There are ten-thousand ways I could object to this stuff Carson. Let me just say I don't think it comes from the sort of place in the human psyche that leads people well.
On the question of whether we are living 'sustainably', the answer is 'yes' and 'no'. In times of change, what CAN be sustainable? We're dynamically adapting to the realities of our world, which are constantly changing.
If you see his thesis as "demonization", then "Mother Culture" is still whispering softly in your ear; "Humans are different then animals, humans are special, the Earth was made for us, so it will therefor support us in our endeavors." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Why do you think you know what 'Mother Culture' is whispering in my ear? Is 'Mother Culture' really saying stuff that is so simple, and am I believing it if she is? The facts are I neither believe it is true that 'the Earth was made for us', nor do I believe that there is a great turn-around to be made by some kind of mass realization that it is false that 'the Earth was made for us'. Those who didn't believe that the earth was made for them were still well able to make environmental catastrophes.
The earth was NOT made for us, we are NOT special, and WE WILL EXTINCT OURSELVES SOON AT THE RATE WE ARE GOING. This is fact, not fiction.
Fair enough, the earth was NOT made for us, we are NOT special. I see no evidence that we will extinct ourselves soon though, and I don't know what 'the rate we are going' is supposed to mean. It's almost ALWAYS possible to identify some measures of change, which, if they remain constant, the world will be destroyed. So what? They don't remain constant; 'the rate we are going' changes in all manner of ways all the time. You might as well tell a runner that at the rate he is going, he's going to run over a cliff, as if he is going to run in a straight line, which he isn't.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 08 2008 : 10:59:12 AM
|
Hi David,
Glad I didn't offend you, and that you are still willing to discuss this in a dialectic manner. This is how I grow as an individual in knowledge and true understanding.
From what I can see, in 'Ishmael', Quinn seems to be sacro-mytholigizing hunter-gatherer culture.This is quite an oversimplification and he addressess it directly in "The Story of B". He is not trying to imply that we need to stop driving cars, and start living in huts while eating only food killed by our own hands, and that tribalism will be the savior of mankind. He is trying to imply that the world was doing fine for 3 million years living under God's ruling. There were hundreds of thousands of different cultures on the planet and they were all living in relative harmony. There were no "World" wars, there was no crime, there was no mass extinctions happening. And this is because back then, humanity was happy to believe that "WE" did not need to take control of how the world was working because everything was working just fine. The air was working fine, the oceans were working fine, everything was working fine. There was space and life here for everyone. This happened not because the early humans were "slow starters" but because they abided by the Law of Limited Competition. Which simply states that you can compete to the best of your ability, but you cannot hunt down your competitors to ensure a greater food source, you cannot deny them access to their food, and we cannot destroy their food. NO other species or previous human culture on earth has disobeyed this law but "our" culture. And we only started disobeying that law 10,000 years ago with the start of "Totalitarian Agriculture". And in the grand scheme of the 3 million years humanity has been HomoSapiensSapiens, 10,000 years is the blink of an eye. And that is all it has taken for us to get to the point we are at now. Which is, we are overpopulated, people all over the world are starving to death, despite the increasing amount of food produced every year, more and more suicides every year, (especially young ones) blah blah blah. The list goes on and on. And it WILL take a "great turn-around to be made by some kind of mass realization that it is false that 'the Earth was made for us" in order to stop the trend we have been setting for 10,000 years. And it doesn't go just for Agriculture either in my opinion despite what Daniel Quinn believes. This agricultural revolution led to a cultural revolution which overtook the entire planet. Now EVERYONE of EVERY culture lives the almost the exact same as our culture, and soon we will experience "cultural collapse". This is what the Plains Indians and every other culture that we "assimilated" into our own have gone through when we took over their lands. They experienced cultural collapse. Their culture soon looked WRONG! because we came in with this new way of acting that did not abide by the "Law of Limited Competition" and these people all thought that we "were" gods, because we had taken over god's job of "running the world". This is why in the Bible the culture that wrote about Adam and Eve wrote that they had "tasted the fruit of the Gods" and became knowledgable like the gods because in their eyes, these people that are living this way believe that they know the difference between right and wrong, the knowledge of WHO SHOULD LIVE AND WHO SHOULD DIE! But unfortunately "WE" aren't actually as smart as the gods and as soon as we started taking matters into our own hands (applying pesticides to keep our crops insect free, killing animals that are predators to our flocks, etc, etc) things started to go downhill fast. And here we are today, a mere 10,000 years later, thinking about things we never thought we would have to. Up until the 1960's (yes that recently) we never even thought about the fact that the Earth might not be able to repair all the damage we were doing to it. Not until Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in regards to the damage DDT was doing, did people start (and only start) to realize that there might come a day when we might wake up to a world without birds. WE ARE KILLING EVERYTHING! That is what I mean when I say "at the rate we are going". At the rate we are going, killing everything off to make more room for us and our food, we will not last more then maybe 5 more generations. And to many that is an extrememly high estimate. Most scientists studying the area of sustainable human developement put that number at TWO more generations. I like to think of myself as an optimist. (that's a joke for you, haha right?) Actually in my mind there is nothing funny about this. I just got married. I'd like to have kids. I don't think that is smart though. What kind of a world am I leaving behind for my children? What kind of VISION FOR HUMANITY am I leaving behind for my children?
Namaste,
CarsonZi |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Sep 08 2008 5:41:13 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 08 2008 : 11:06:22 AM
|
| Daniel Quinn describes our situation in parable style by comparing "us" to a boiling frog. Drop a frog into boiling water and it will scamper to get out fast....Drop a frog into luke warm water and slowly heat it up and the frog will enjoy his bath and go out with a smile on his face. Scary? Yes. An oversimplification of our status? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 08 2008 : 5:37:58 PM
|
He is trying to imply that the world was doing fine for 3 million years living under God's ruling. There were hundreds of thousands of different cultures on the planet and they were all living in relative harmony. There were no "World" wars, there was no crime, there was no mass extinctions happening. And this is because back then, humanity was happy to believe that "WE" did not need to take control of how the world was working because everything was working just fine. The air was working fine, the oceans were working fine, everything was working fine. There was space and life here for everyone. This happened not because the early humans were "slow starters" but because they abided by the Law of Limited Competition. Which simply states that you can compete to the best of your ability, but you cannot hunt down your competitors to ensure a greater food source, you cannot deny them access to their food, and we cannot destroy their food. NO other species or previous human culture on earth has disobeyed this law but "our" culture.
Carson, it's all a fantasy. He's making it up. There are some partial truths in there ( for example some bad things couldn't happen on as large a scale as they do now ), but the rest is just fantasy. No crime. All the cultures living in relative harmony. Absolute baloney. It's no more true than the story of Peter Pan is true.
By and large, they had ALL of the vices we had. Minus the larger scale, and minus all the great stuff that civilization eventually brought (like the end of slavery, a decent criminal justice system etc. etc.).
Which simply states that you can compete to the best of your ability, but you cannot hunt down your competitors to ensure a greater food source,
Depending on who or where you were, you hunted down your competitors, raped, pillaged and slaughtered, divided their women up among yourselves, enjoyed torturing the men to death over a few nights of feasting and fun, and kept some of them as slaves. Obeying 'the law of limited competition' indeed!
Always keep an eye on some of the good things civilization brought.  And fantasy-stories of hunter-gatherer existence won't help anyone. Except maybe those who draw royalties from the books in which those fantasies are propagated.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Sep 08 2008 6:19:17 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 08 2008 : 10:19:32 PM
|
I'm sorry David but you are wrong about this being fantasy. This IS science, history and prehistory. (And I've read you giving others a hard time on here about their issues with science so I KNOW you can understand a scientific point of view which this is) I REALLY suggest that you read the three books if you truly think you are right. It is very hard for me to explain all the in's and out's that Daniel takes three books to explain on a forum like this. But because I truly do care, I will type in one chapter of his book My Ishmael that will hopefully explain a lot. Not about crime, and world wars, because you really need to do your OWN research on PREhistory before you say this stuff, because you are out and out wrong. I can't convince you, but a little bit of research on the subject will I'm positive. Here is another parable that explains much:
Tunes and Dancers:
terpischore is among the places you would enjoy visiting in the Universe. This was a planet where people emerged in the usual way in the community of life. For a time they lived as all others lived, simply eating whatever came to hand. But after a couple of million years of living this way, they noticed that it was very easy to promote the regrowth of their favorite foods. You might say they found a few easy steps that would have this result. They didn't have to take these steps in order to stay alive, but if they took them, their favorite foods were always more readily available. these were, of course, the steps of a dance.
A few steps of the dance performed just three or four days a month, enriched their lives greatly and took almost no effort. As here on earth, the people of this planet were not a single people butmany peoples and as time went on each people developed it's own approach to the dance. Some continued to dance just a few steps 3 or 4 days a month, others found it made more sense for them to even more of their favorite foods so they danced a few steps every second or third day. Still others saw no reason why they shouldn't live mostly on their favorite foods so they danced a few steps every single day. Things went on this way for 10;s of thousands of years among the people of this planet, who thought of themselves as living in the hands of the gods and leaving everything to them. For this reason they called themselves the Leavers,
But one group of Leavers eventually said to themselves; "Why should we just live partially on the foods we favor? Why don't we live entirely on the foods we favor? All we have to do is devote a lot more time to dancing." So this one particular group took to dancing several hours a day. Because they thought of themselves as taking their welfare into their own hands, we'll call them Takers. The results were spectacular. The Takers were inundated with thier favorite foods. A manager class soon emerged to look after the accumulation and storage of surplusses-something that had never been necessary when everyone was just dancing a few hours a week. The members of this manager class were far too busy to do any dancing themselves, and since their work was so critical, they soon came to be regarded as social and political leaders. But after a few years these leaders of the Takers began to notice that food production was dropping off and they went out to see what was going wrong. What they found was that the dancers were slacking off. They weren't dancing several hours a day, they were dancing only an hour or two a day and sometimes not even that much! The leaders asked shy.
"What's the point of all this dancing?" the dancers said. "It isn't necessary to dance 7 or 8 hours a day to get the food we need. There's plenty of food even if we dance just an hour a day. We're never hungry. So why shouldn't we relax and take life easy, the way we used to do?"
The leaders saw things very differently, of course. If the dancers went back to living the way they used to, then the leaders would soon have to do the same, and that didn't appeal to them at all. They considered and tried many differnt schemes to encourage or cajole or tempt or shame or force the dancers into dancing longer hours but nothing worked until one of them came up with the idea of locking up the food.
"What good will that do?" he was asked.
"The reason the dancers aren't dancing right now is that they just have to reach out and take the food they want. If we lock it away, they won't be able to do that."
"But if we lock up the food, the dancers will starve to death!"
"No, no, you don't understand," the other said with a smile. "We'll link dancing to recieving food-so much food for so much dancing. So if the dancers dance a little, they'll get a little food, and if they dance a lot they will get a lot. This way, slackers will always be hungry and dancers who dancefor long hours will have full stomachs."
"They'll never put up with such an arrangement," he was told.
"They'll have no choice. We'll lock the food away in storehouses, and the dancers will either dance or they'll starve."
"The dancers will break into the storehouses."
"We'll recriut gaurds from among the dancers. We'll excuse them from dancing and have them gaurd the storehouses instead. We'll pay them the same way we pay the dancers, with food- so much food for so many hours of gaurding."
"It wil never work," he was told.
But oddly enough it did work. It worked even better then before for now there was no shortage of dancers willing to dance 7, 8, even 12 hours a day.
Putting the food under lock and key had other consequences as well. For eg, in the past, ordinary baskets had been good enough to hold the surplus food being produced. But these proved to be too flinsy to the huge surplusses. So now potters had to take over for basket makers, and they had to learn how to build bigger and bigger pots then before, which meant they needed bigger and more efficient kilns. And because not all the dancers took kindly to the food being locked away, the gaurds had to be equipped with better and better weapons then before, which meant that toolmakers began looking at new materials to replace the stone weapons of the past-copper, bronze, and so on. As metals became available for use in weapons, other artisans found new uses for them and each new craft gave birth to others.
But forcing the dancers to dnace for 10 or 12 hours a day had an even more important consequence. Population growth is inherently a function of food availability. If you increase the food available to any population of any species that population will grow-provided it has space to grow. And of course the takers had plenty of space in which to grow-their neighbor's space.
They were perfectly willing to grow peacefully into their neighbor's space. They said to the Leavers around them, "Look, why don't you start dancing the way we do? Look at how far we've come from dancing this way. We have things you can't even dream of having. The way you dance is terribly inefficient and unproductive. The way we dance is the way people were MEANT to dance. So let us move into your territory and we'll show you how it's done.
Some of the folds around them thought this sounded like a good idea, and they embraced the Taker way. But other said "We're doing fine the way we are. We dance a few hours a week and that's all we care to dance. We think you're crazy to knock yourselves out dancing 50-60 hours a week, but that's your business. If you lik it, you do it. But we're not going to do it."
The Takers expanded around the holdout's and eventually isolated them. One of the holdout peoples were the Singe, who were used to dancing a couple hours a day to produce the foods they favored. At first they lived as before. But then their children began to be jealous of the things the Taker children had, and they started offerinf to dance a few hours a day for the Takers and to help gaurd the food storagehouses. After a few generations the Singe were completely assimilated into the Taker lifestyle and forgot they had ever been Singe.
Another holdout people were the Kemke, who wer used to dancing just a few hours aweek and who loved the leisure this lifestyle gave them. They were resolved not to let happen to them what happened to the Singe, and they stuck to their resolve. But soon the Takers came to them and said "Look, we can't let you have all this land in the middle of our territory. You're not making efficient use of it. Either start dancing the way we dance or we're going to have to move you to one corner of your territory so we can put the rest to good use." But the Kemke refused to dance like the Takers so the takers came and moved them into a corner of their territory, which they called a "reservation" menaing it was reserved for the Kemke. BUt the Kemkewere used to getting most of their food by foraging and their reservation was too small to sustain the foraging of thier people. The Takers said to them, "That's alright we will kepp you supplied with food. All we want you to do is stay our of the way on your reservation." So the Takers began supplying them with food. Gradually the Kemkeforgot how to do thier own hunting and gathering and of course the more they forgot the more dependant they became on the Takers. They began to feel like worthless beggars, lost all sense of self respect and fell into alcoholism and suicidal depression. In the end their children saw nothing on the reservation worth staying for and drifted off to start dancing 10 hours a day for the takers.
Another holdout people were the Waddi, who spent only a few hours a month dancing and were perfectly happy with that lifestyle. They’d seen what happened to the Singe and the Kemke and were determined that it wouldn’t happen to them. They figured they had even more to lose then the Singe or the Kemke, who wer already used to doing a lot more dancing for their foods. So when the Takers invited them to become Takers, the Waddi just said no thanks , we’re happy the way we are. Then, when the Takers finally came and told them they had to move onto a reservation, the Waddi said they didn’t care to do that either. The Takers explained that they werent’ being offered a choice in the matter. If they didn’t move to the reservationwillingly, they’d be moved by force. The Waddi replied that they would meet force with force and warned the Takers that they were prepared to fight to the death to preserve their way of life. They said “Look, you have all the land in this part of the world. All we ask is to be allowed to go on living the way we prefer. We won’t bother you.”
But the Takers said “You don’t understand. The way you live is not only ineffiecint and wasteful, it is WRONG. People weren’t meant to live the way you live. People were meant to live the way Takers live.
“How can you possibly know such a thing?” the Waddi asked.
“It’s obvious,” the Takers said. “Just look at how successful we are. If we weren’t living the way people were meant to live then we wouldn’t be so successful.”
“To us you don’t look that successful at all,” the Waddi replied. “You force people to dance 10-12 hours a day just to stay alive. That’s no way to live. We dance just a few hours a month and we never go hungry, because the food in the world is right out there free for the taking. We have an easy, carefree life and that’s what success is all about.”
The Takers said “That’s not what success is all about at all. You’ll see what success is all about when we send in our troops to force you onto the land we’ve set aside for you.”
And the Waddi did indeed learn about success- or at least what the Takers called success-when their soldiers arrived to drive them from their homeland. The Taker soldiers weren’t more courageous or more skillful, but they outnumbered the Waddi and could bring in replacements at will which the Waddi couldn’t. The invaders also had more advanced weapons and most important of all, unlimited supplies of food which the Waddi certainly did not. The taker soldiers never had to worry about food, because fresh shipments arrived daily from back home, where it was being produced continuosly and prodigiously. As the war dragged on the Waddi force became smaller and smaller and weaker and weaker and before long the invaders wiped them out completely.” (from Daniel Quinn's "My Ishmael")
This chapter has a few more summarizing paragraphs but this should serve to illustrate better what I am trying to say to you. This is not fiction from my perspective, (I believed this long before ever reading Daniel Quinn) even though it is presented as much.
Namaste,
CarsonZi |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 09 2008 : 01:28:45 AM
|
| This is partially why I have a problem with using the word Abundance in Samyama |
|
|
|
Katrine
Norway
1813 Posts |
Posted - Sep 09 2008 : 08:54:18 AM
|
Hi CarsonZi
quote:
I was just throwing my feelings out there to see how others may feel about the use of the word Abundance
This could be because I am Norwegian and doesn't read the word 'abundance' the way native English speakers do......but to me abundance always meant infinite goodness.....an eternal spring...upwelling of goodness. That - by trusting and releasing abundance into silence - the result would be overflowing of all that is good and creativly blossoming.
As the flower needs abundant sunlight to sprout......
that kind of surplussness......
In Norwegian the translation of abundance is: Overflod (over flooding) |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 09 2008 : 09:28:52 AM
|
Hello Carson,
Unfortunately I think we've gotten way off-topic in discussing the correctness and incorrectness of Quinn's worldview. We've both said what we have to say about it and we'll have to leave that at that.
I have to commend you for not getting hostile in disagreement. That's a good sign. It's a good omen for eventual resolution.
As for the samyama, you've gotten good answers there already.
Best regards,
-David
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 09 2008 : 11:30:59 AM
|
Hi David. I didn't think I had gone off topic with my posting, in fact the reason I posted this thread is partially because of that chapter I spent 2 hours typing in here. That chapter explains very well a large portion of why I have an issue with using the word abundance in samyama, which is exactly why this thread was created.(by me) So off topic, no. But I can agree to disagree with you, yes. Most people DON'T agree with Quinn. In fact, most (especially religious) people who know anything about his message often call him the "AntiChrist" because his message is exactly what the Bible said the AntiChrist's message would be. "Turning humanity away from the need for salvation and towards a love for the world". Like I said earlier, I am not looking for converts, I am just looking for the reason why Abundance is included in the Samyama sutras. And I have heard why, and I still have a problem with it. These are MY opinions/feelings, nothing more. But it remains my opinion. I too commend you on not getting angry with me, and my testings of the AYP reasonings. I thrive on dialectic conversation (ever since reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance as a child) but most people get too defensive about their positions to actually HAVE a dialectic conversation with me. I thank you for continuing with me up to this point, and I thank you for being so mature about it. I hope this thread will not damage your ability to positively communicate with me on other threads, so please don't hold my opinions against me, as I won't for you.
I am to start Samyama practice tomorrow, and after all that has been said here I am going to elect to use Contentedness instead of Abundance. I really DO appreciate everyones input and hope that I have offended no one (especially Yogani) by continuing to stick with what feels right in both my heart and my head in exchanging the word Abundance. I will let you all know here what the future outcome seems to be in time, as I realize this is a bit of an experiment. Hopefully my head won't explode.
In Love,
CarsonZi |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Sep 09 2008 11:34:32 AM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 3:21:56 PM
|
GOOD NEWS!
I GET IT! I understand now why you included Abundance in the Samyama sutras. All it took was my first time adding Samyama to my practice and I understood. It made me cry when I realized. (in a good way of course) I got to the point in the sutras where I was going to say Contentedness, and Abundance came to mind instead. Not the Abundance that I cringed when I read it on the list here on the Internet, but the Abundance that I felt in Samyama. The Abundance of BLISS! I never understood before (before I did Samayama) that there was a difference between the paper words and the mind reality. (if that makes ANY sense at all) I don't think I could have said anything OTHER then Abundance! I'm sure not all Samyama practices will be like today, but I think I can safely say that I will be without a doubt using the sutras as perscribed. (sorry to have openly tested you as such Yogani) I should have more faith. And I think I do now. Not blind faith either, but the faith of "experience". Thank you all for trying to help a blind man see the light. I think I just needed to open my eyelids a little more.
On the topic of Daniel Quinn and his theories of History and PreHistory I stand by him and his ideas. And in fact I have a short and concise response to you David when you said:
"Carson, it's all a fantasy. He's making it up. There are some partial truths in there ( for example some bad things couldn't happen on as large a scale as they do now ), but the rest is just fantasy. No crime. All the cultures living in relative harmony. Absolute baloney. It's no more true than the story of Peter Pan is true.
By and large, they had ALL of the vices we had. Minus the larger scale, and minus all the great stuff that civilization eventually brought (like the end of slavery, a decent criminal justice system etc. etc.).
Which simply states that you can compete to the best of your ability, but you cannot hunt down your competitors to ensure a greater food source,
Depending on who or where you were, you hunted down your competitors, raped, pillaged and slaughtered, divided their women up among yourselves, enjoyed torturing the men to death over a few nights of feasting and fun, and kept some of them as slaves. Obeying 'the law of limited competition' indeed!"
He (DQ) says in "My Ishmael":
"I should warn you that people will tell you that the impression I've given you of tribal peoples is a romanticized one. These people believe that Mother Cultrue speaks the undoubted truth when she teaches that humans are inately flawed and utterly doomed to misery. They're sure that there must be all sorts of things wrong with every tribal way of life, and of course they're correct- if you mean by 'wrong' something "you" don't like. There are things in every one of the cultures I've mentioned that you would find distasteful or immoral or repugnant. But the fact remains that whenever anthropologists encounter tribal peoples, they encounter people who show no signs of discontent, who do not complain of being miserable or ill-treated, who are not seething with rage, who are not perpetually struggling with depression, anxiety, and alienation. The people who imagine that I'm idealizing this life fail to understand that every singel extant tribal culture is extant because it survived for thousands of years, and it has survived thousands of years because it's members are content with it. It may well be that tribal societies occasionally developed in ways that were intolerable to their members, but if so, these societies disappeared for the very simple reason that people had no compelling reason to support them. There's only one way to force people to accept an intolerable lifestyle....You have to lock up the food".
Any thoughts?
Lovingly,
CarsonZi
|
Edited by - CarsonZi on Sep 10 2008 3:33:59 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 5:51:38 PM
|
Hi Carson,
Here are three critical questions for you:
(1) Is it true that tribal societies are now, and even have been in the past, generally devoid of discontent, complaints of being miserable or ill-treated, rage, depression, anxiety, and alienation?
(2) Are inter-tribal raids which include massacres and slave-taking merely a fiction? ( Or were they on the contrary even ubiquitous and even the order of the day at various historical times and places among hunter-gatherer societies?)
(3) Can the answer to any of the above two questions be 'no' and Quinn's picture be true and consistent?
My own answer to all those three questions is 'no'. If your answers to any of them is 'yes', I'd invite you to do some research; see if you get agreement from anthropologists. I don't even need to address Quinn's argument, because when something is very much wrong on its facts, often it is overkill to pick apart the logic.
I hope that helps,
-David
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Sep 10 2008 5:59:57 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 6:36:48 PM
|
David,
Answer 1- Yes. This IS backed up by anthropologists and it will only take me a day or two to cite them for you. The only one I personally disagree with is potentially the rage one. There DEFINITELY was no perpetual struggling with depression, anxiety or alienation.
2-Cite an instance of a PREhistoric community that massacred and took their competitors slaves and I will quote to you what DQ says about that. (it's rather long so I'd rather not type it all in here without reason)
3-Yes. This all is explained in the 3 books. Both of your questions are answered in depth by DQ himself. If you have a problem with his theories you should really read them yourself before passing complete judgment. I am just here to try an perpetuate knowledge and understanding. And posing theories and hosting dialectic conversations does this. If you feel offended by this or feel that I am a dumb ass, then that's your choice. But that doesn't make it true, and it doesn't make DQ a liar as you have already said in "he is making it up". Just because you don't think this thesis is founded doesn't make it so. No more then me thinking that it IS founded makes it so. So please don't continue to get upset over this. Until you can provide some EVIDENCE that his theories are unfounded, (and the only way you could do that would be to understand his actual theories by reading them for yourself) please don't continue to suggest that you know for sure that he is lying and wrong. At least I have read the books to understand what he is actually talking about. As far as I can tell all you know of DQ's theories is what I have said myself and maybe what you read on Wiki. Not much considering how much there is out there. So if you REALLY want the true answers to your questions you should question DQ, or read his books at least, and not question me. This is not my thesis, I just believe it. And I'm not the best at reiterating his ideas. I have my own stuff going on such as this: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....PIC_ID=4373.
Not trying to get hostile here David, just feel that it is difficult to pick out piece after piece of DQ's theories to explain to you what is fully available to you yourself if you are willing to read it. Not to mention time consuming. (look at how long my postings have been in this thread! I'm not a fast typer by any means) And believe me, I did my own research to verify the holes I found in DQ's thesis, so I really don't need to do any more research. But I WILL post some links for you to some research papers that verify what DQ is saying as soon as I have some time. But first I have to go do my practices and then take my pooches for a walk. (They're bouncing off the walls right now )
Hope this helps,
In Love,
CarsonZi |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Sep 10 2008 8:09:50 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 11 2008 : 10:47:55 AM
|
David,
Name one PREhistoric tribal society that has ever had it's food under lock and key. And if you can't then at least name one other method of forcing a society to live in intolerable cicrumstances. Because that is what it all really comes down to. This is his "basic" theory. That because we live under the circumstances where "work" has to be done daily in order to "buy" food, we are forced to live in this society and have no way out. If other societies were unhappy with their intolerable situations (as you have told me has happened WITHOUT A DOUBT) exactly HOW did the tribal authorities keep from being ousted by a coup of revolting peasants(or whatever you want to call them) if they did not keep the food under lock and key. And if this PREhistoric society DID keep their food under lock and key, what was the name of this group? I am still in the process of collecting a bunch of research links and will hopefully post them by the end of the day. PLEASE take the time to read them as it is taking me a lot of time and effort to find them all and I would be a little upset if you refused to read any of it after I did all this work for you. (I've already read most of this stuff) And I hope that you can still keep an open mind about this instead of automatically writing it all off just because you don't like what you are hearing.(that's what it seems like you are doing, especially since you are writing off EVERYTHING DQ has to say without knowing exactly what he is saying) I am willing to keep an open mind on these topics David but you have yet to provide ANY evidence that he is lying, other then your opinion that is. Which doesn't really count as evidence in MY opinion. So please, prove me and DQ wrong so that we can get somewhere here instead of going in opinionated circles, round and round. Please take no offence to this as none was meant in the least. Just trying to arive at the truth.
In Love,
CarsonZi
P.S. I have sent you the links via email as there seems to be concern from the moderators as to where this discussion is going. Hopefully we can continue this in private. Namaste. |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Sep 11 2008 1:37:29 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Question about using 
