I disagree. I think all religions should learn to be accepting of other religions and their beliefs and not try to find a "best" or "worst" or whatever. Though, I do have a very high respect for Jains and their values and lifestyle.
If I were a religious man Jainism would be my religion of choice. I do try to live by many of the beliefs shared by jains, but in my own way. The teachings are extremely positive and respectful of all life on earth - now that's a religion I can accept as having a place in this world, rather than the three evils - fanatical christians, muslims and jews, all people who are willing to cause harm on another because of their twisted perception of what is right and wrong.
Jainism is cool, but a bit extreme. They walk around with little brooms sweeping the ground so they don't step on a bug. Alright, good intention, I don't kill bugs, try to let them outside when they're in the house (flies and bees) but I mean, come on. Maybe it's because I don't believe those bugs are reincarnated dead relatives. Hell, if they are, the sooner they die the sooner they get reborn as something better, right? Kill all the bugs! No, I'm kidding. But it's not something I could ever really get on board with. I'm interested in living a normal, full human life, but they believe doing that is not as good as being some ascetic. asceticism is alright, but shouldn't be the real aim of life. I just read in "the last temptation of christ" a great line, went something like "in the desert there's hunger thirst and prostrations...and God. Here (in normal life) there's food, wine, women...and God. Everywhere God. So why go look for Him in the desert?" and it really rings true to me. I don't believe the only salvation or enlightenment is in living a monk's life. Why wouldn't it be available to the layman?
Tripping you have a very partial view of jainism, possibly because you have not met any jains. Jainism is not about sweeping the floor in front of yourself, etc. it is about the practice of nonviolence as far as humanly possible. Our limits in that direction may not extend to the point of some monks, but that is no reason to slight their efforts. God may be in the wine women and song, but he is also in the desert. Why should those who choose to seek him there be wrong? Your use of the word normal is disturbing. Normal is the majority's way of life, and the majority in this world lead a life off ignorance and destruction. Only very few even try to see beyond their flickering blinkered existence and even think of the possibility of a greater good. Normal life is the life of a sheep. Thos who achieved greatness were the ones who had the guts to reject it and seek the higher. This is very much available to the layman. Look at Gandhi. He was a two bit lawyer, nothing extraordinary at all until he chose a higher path. See the transformation it brought. He was no monk, yet rare is the monk of his renunciation and wisdom.
And bugs are reincarnated relatives. All things are. Could you exist in your 'normal' life without them? Look deeper and find all things to be interconnected. Family is not by flesh alone.
Bhaskar, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was wrong to seek God in the desert. I just said I don't believe that's the only way, and I disagree with anyone or any faith that says it is. I also never said I didn't respect Jains; I respect them and their path, as I respect all paths. I realize I sounded overly critical in my post, but my main point was that it is not a religion for me, personally. I like their efforts towards nonviolence, how can I not? But it seems extreme to me. And like I said, I don't like that they believe the lay jains have to wait to be reincarnated as a monk jain to reach enlightenment. Also, normal doesn't have to mean an ignorant life. I simply mean that work, women, fun with friends (even if it includes alcohol or drugs), all that, isn't bad. It's all about how you go about it. Unless you go live in the wild, primitive style, hunting and gathering all your food and supplies yourself, there's going to be some compromise, because no society is perfect. But you can live a higher life of right intention, even while playing within the imperfect system. You don't have to be an ascetic to find God. I once thought asceticism was going to be my path, but now I realize that for me, it would be an empty life. For me it would be escapism. So I don't believe asceticism can be the only way to God. I think I'm talking in circles now.
Trippin, the percentage of those who lived a life of women, alcohol, etc. and yet achieved any sort of spiritual eminence is very low in comparison with those who live a life of self control. I am not saying monkhood is the only way, it is an extreme, as is indulgence. But it is possible to live an intelligent life of right contact with the world, neither clinging to it, nor rejecting it outright. The trouble with sexual indulgence, drinking, drugs, etc are that they strengthen the sense of body identification and attachment to the outer world, and the false notion that happiness can be found therein.
Who cares about spiritual eminence? Not me. I care about living a happy life. That's the benchmark, as far as I'm concerned. What else should we really be aiming for? If we're truly happy, then that is success in life. Aiming for some deep enlightenment... what is that, anyways? Mostly it's just an idea. For me, in my mind, I follow how I feel. If I feel at peace with something, if I feel happy and fulfilled in doing something, then it is the right path for me. I don't want to follow some external teaching. I'll try it out, of course, I have and do; but the test is the way I feel inside. I don't know what enlightenment, heaven, or whatever is. All I know is how I feel at a given moment. God is within us, and must speak within us. I feel that that speaking is done through feeling, intuition, instinct, call it what you will. That is the guide. Body attatchment. We are at least in part our bodies, in this existence. To deny that is to deny reality. Why reject a part of who we are? I'm not a drunk or a slut or any of the extremes like that. But why shouldn't I enjoy physical fun? What's wrong with drinking and watching a baseball game with friends and family? Just tonight I realized that the joy of watching baseball lies in the alcohol and the company...it's a boring sport otherwise, haha. It's funny, too. You talk about how the whole world is connected, and the bugs are part of me in a cosmic but literal sense, then say that attachment to the outer world is false. Well, which is it? Am I connected to it or not? I opt towards the former. I am a part of everyting, including this physical existence. So it is right to enjoy this material existence. It's almost a form of love towards it, to want to be a part of it, to participate fully. The only thing is not to forget that it isn't the only part of me, that there is a higher nature as well. But it doesn't make sense to me to reject the lower nature. It'd be like amputation.
What is enlightenment or spiritual eminence but a firm abidence in endless unlimited bliss? To say the body is a part of who I am does not make sense logically. The body constantly changes our body has not a single cell in common with the body of 7 years ago. And yet your identity has not changed. No amputee would ever agree that they are not a whole person because a part of the body is lost. The interconnectedness can be touched through love and not attachment. Attachment is the very antithesis of love, it is clinging, it is beggarliness, while love is freeing and non-demanding. Yes you are connected with everything. But you cannot experience the fullness of that connection while you are stuck in your limited identific ation as the one body mind complex. If you must have attachment and identification, let it be with the whole. And when the identification is with the whole, the pleasures of one body in that are insignificant, every action is for a greater purpose, fulfilling the needs of all beings and working for their good.
If I stab the body "you" occupy, did I stab you or not? And, everything changes constantly; does that mean everything is not itself? Is everything nothing because it is changing? My identity hasn't changed? I'm the same person I was 7 years ago, back in high school? Personally, I try not to get lost in abstraction. I'm aiming for something much simpler. I mean, how great the number of seekers, but how few and far between are the saints! I've been searching for the big answers for years, and have not made a single advance. I'm in the same place I was when I started. So, I'm redirecting. If spiritual bliss is out of reach, I can at least hope for living a happy life. I just want to live in front of my eyes. If some grand connection becomes apparent, that's great, maybe these things are found when you stop looking. I'm so lost right now that I don't even know how to start looking, so I'm not going to; i'm going to let it ride for a while. For the record, I don't actually disagree with you on that last part I quoted. It's just not my focus right now.
No more than if you stab yourself or anything else. Everything is. Anything said beyond that is meaningless. No and yes.
Brandon - how many people are truly happy? To attain to happiness is in itself a spiritual achievement in my view. If you are happy, it tends to rub off on others too - at least that's my experience. The I Ching says 'the greatest thing in making people joyous is that they keep one another in order'. Wise words. It's all too easy to get lost in abstraction as you say, and rather than deepening our connection with things, that actually can serve to cut us off. And not only from externals, and from other people, but from our own real needs, sensitivities, and so on. It is possible to get so wrapped up in what other people think or have thought that one losses touch with one's own direction. This has happened to me in the past. I think you're right to let things go for a while - There is nothing wrong in enjoying life - it's just a question of balance and not going to extremes really. Enjoy........................
