Relationships with the landscape

I posted this ages ago on another site and lets just say it was ill-recieved however you guys (and gals) seem alot more balanced.
"It is often forgotten that dictionaries are artificial repositories, put together well after the languages they define. Languages are irrational and of a magical nature."( jorge luis borges, prologue to 'el otro,el mismo') I know starting a post with a qoute is a tad pretentious but i will try and be transparent in my reasoning. I have noted in the past threads (especially on contentious subjects) that some posts become stuck on language rather than the broader meaning ( lets say spirit of the post) I think another qoute will establish my position on posts, if we replace the word book where it appears in the qoute with post. "A book is more than a verbal structure or series of verbal structures; it is the dialogue it establishes with its reader and the intonation it imposes upoun his voice and the changing, durable images it leaves in his memory; A book is not an isolated being; it is a relationship an axis of innumerable relationships" (jorge luis borges, again) Right sorry about being so verbose! I have noted that terms such as ritual, sacred and numinous have caused some considerable debate (some very interesting) I would propose that most of us even in the mundane define our lives by and through ritual, that most of us have or have had a numinous experience at least once in our lives, that then helps define our relationship with the sacred (and what and how we define as sacred) As inheritors of a lanscape (internal and external) we are subject to innumerable inferences and influences that (if not define) effect our perception of reality. Within this reality we percieve certain sites and structures as 'special' 'evocative' 'sacred' 'breathtaking' beautiful' 'numinous' etc. I would posit that to fully explore these sites (and there nature) we therefore must explore ourselves, our very nature. we must contextualise our external lanscape by that with which we relate to it our very counciousness. cheers MM

For me personally speaking I don't think of these sites as sacred anymore than anything else is. To me everything is equally sacred/unsacred whatever that term means. The ambiguity of these sites however, allows me to indulge my imagination and wander my subconcious. I think you get from these sites what you bring to them. They may be more interesting to us now than they were previously when in use (though in a sense they are in use by us still, perhaps in a different way).

laughingball wrote:For me personally speaking I don't think of these sites as sacred anymore than anything else is. To me everything is equally sacred/unsacred whatever that term means. The ambiguity of these sites however, allows me to indulge my imagination and wander my subconcious. I think you get from these sites what you bring to them. They may be more interesting to us now than they were previously when in use (though in a sense they are in use by us still, perhaps in a different way).

Hi LB,
I did not posit that "these sites" are more sacred or less profane than anything else!I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I was talking about influences including experiences that "helps define our relationship with the sacred (and what and how we define as sacred)
I understand how you may have read this... as because I talk of sacred I must therefore be defining a profane. However within this interpretation is a fundamental anomaly!
I concur that there is no demarcation between sacred or profane however how we arrive at such a view and in fact what constitutes that view is I suspect a very very different animal for both of us.

Regards
MM

Hi LB,
I did not posit that "these sites" are more sacred or less profane than anything else!I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I was talking about influences including experiences that "helps define our relationship with the sacred (and what and how we define as sacred)
I understand how you may have read this... as because I talk of sacred I must therefore be defining a profane. However within this interpretation is a fundamental anomaly!
I concur that there is no demarcation between sacred or profane however how we arrive at such a view and in fact what constitutes that view is I suspect a very very different animal for both of us.

Regards
MM

Hi MM,

I've re-evaluated my views since we talked in the past (on some other forum), and probably agree with a lot of the things you were saying and realise I speaking some crap at times.

(I'm currently getting deeper into (old / authentic) vendanta and advaita and now realise why you were saying most of the 'neo' stuff is so shit).

Anyway not to distract from topic...

Regards,
BB

I have noted that terms such as ritual, sacred and numinous have caused some considerable debate (some very interesting) I would propose that most of us even in the mundane define our lives by and through ritual, that most of us have or have had a numinous experience at least once in our lives, that then helps define our relationship with the sacred (and what and how we define as sacred) As inheritors of a lanscape (internal and external) we are subject to innumerable inferences and influences that (if not define) effect our perception of reality. Within this reality we percieve certain sites and structures as 'special' 'evocative' 'sacred' 'breathtaking' beautiful' 'numinous' etc. I would posit that to fully explore these sites (and there nature) we therefore must explore ourselves, our very nature. we must contextualise our external lanscape by that with which we relate to it our very counciousness. cheers MM

Could rituals be equated with 'habits, 'tendencies' or 'motivations' perhaps? ...and by looking at these within ourselves maybe we can better understand our ancestors and their constructions? Makes sense though maybe I got the wrong end of stick again.

I am interested to know how other people relate to these prehistoric sites/landcapes and how they are perceived whether sacred or otherwise. Its fascinating I think how and why people relate to these sites in the way they/we do (...or is this going off subject?.

I love hearing about peoples numinous(?) and unusual experiences at sites though I've never managed to have any myself. In relation to personal numinous experiences the result seems to be to regard sites with greater indifference if anything... though that said they do give me a real buzz and a lot of pleasure.

laughingball wrote:

I have noted that terms such as ritual, sacred and numinous have caused some considerable debate (some very interesting) I would propose that most of us even in the mundane define our lives by and through ritual, that most of us have or have had a numinous experience at least once in our lives, that then helps define our relationship with the sacred (and what and how we define as sacred) As inheritors of a lanscape (internal and external) we are subject to innumerable inferences and influences that (if not define) effect our perception of reality. Within this reality we percieve certain sites and structures as 'special' 'evocative' 'sacred' 'breathtaking' beautiful' 'numinous' etc. I would posit that to fully explore these sites (and there nature) we therefore must explore ourselves, our very nature. we must contextualise our external lanscape by that with which we relate to it our very counciousness. cheers MM

Could rituals be equated with 'habits, 'tendencies' or 'motivations' perhaps? ...and by looking at these within ourselves maybe we can better understand our ancestors and their constructions? Makes sense though maybe I got the wrong end of stick again.

I am interested to know how other people relate to these prehistoric sites/landcapes and how they are perceived whether sacred or otherwise. Its fascinating I think how and why people relate to these sites in the way they/we do (...or is this going off subject?.

I love hearing about peoples numinous(?) and unusual experiences at sites though I've never managed to have any myself. In relation to personal numinous experiences the result seems to be to regard sites with greater indifference if anything... though that said they do give me a real buzz and a lot of pleasure.

Hi Lb,
I would not equate 'true' ritual with habitual tendencies as ritual should be outside of the 'normal' it should be consciously seperate from the mundane sphere of operation, hence all the highly stylised/injunctions about its spaces (whether the ladder of the Shaman or the mandalla of the tantrika) One of the reasons that ritual is utilised in both the religious and psychotherapeutic arenas is that the unconscious can not distinguish between ritual and reality. The ritual becomes the reality in that sacred space.When I say 'true' ritual I am not talking of the microwave consumerist ritualisation of the dressing up box.

However on another note, I was reading Rumi and thought you might like this (please ignore the cheesy video)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfUFskuN9es
Regards
MM

laughingball wrote:

Hi LB,
I did not posit that "these sites" are more sacred or less profane than anything else!I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I was talking about influences including experiences that "helps define our relationship with the sacred (and what and how we define as sacred)
I understand how you may have read this... as because I talk of sacred I must therefore be defining a profane. However within this interpretation is a fundamental anomaly!
I concur that there is no demarcation between sacred or profane however how we arrive at such a view and in fact what constitutes that view is I suspect a very very different animal for both of us.

Regards
MM

Hi MM,

I've re-evaluated my views since we talked in the past (on some other forum), and probably agree with a lot of the things you were saying and realise I speaking some crap at times.

(I'm currently getting deeper into (old / authentic) vendanta and advaita and now realise why you were saying most of the 'neo' stuff is so shit).

Anyway not to distract from topic...

Regards,
BB

Hi Lb,
refreshing to read some one who aknowledges that they leave less useful tools behind (rather than carry them round) I think I can learn from that LB!
I hope you enjoy/find useful the Advaita/vedanta exploration.....not my forte, but bloody interesting stuff!

Regards
MM

Hi Lb,
refreshing to read some one who aknowledges that they leave less useful tools behind (rather than carry them round) I think I can learn from that LB!
I hope you enjoy/find useful the Advaita/vedanta exploration.....not my forte, but bloody interesting stuff!

Regards
MM

I think an important part of spiritual growth is in not clinging to the tools too dearly and not taking them too seriously. I suppose this is where faith/trust comes into play and letting go of the raft. Trusting one's inner guide/guru/deep intuition primarily perhaps.

I like the Rumi words on that clip, they sound not dissimilar from vedanta perspective.

Whats your forte? Did you say Vajyrayana buddhism? Any books recommendations?

Just out of curiousity is there particular reason for not being attracted to advaita/vedanta (not that you should be)?

laughingball wrote:

Hi Lb,
refreshing to read some one who aknowledges that they leave less useful tools behind (rather than carry them round) I think I can learn from that LB!
I hope you enjoy/find useful the Advaita/vedanta exploration.....not my forte, but bloody interesting stuff!

Regards
MM

I think an important part of spiritual growth is in not clinging to the tools too dearly and not taking them too seriously. I suppose this is where faith/trust comes into play and letting go of the raft. Trusting one's inner guide/guru/deep intuition primarily perhaps.

I like the Rumi words on that clip, they sound not dissimilar from vedanta perspective.

Whats your forte? Did you say Vajyrayana buddhism? Any books recommendations?

Just out of curiousity is there particular reason for not being attracted to advaita/vedanta (not that you should be)?

Hi LB, I agree one must leave the raft behind....
In terms of my forte....to be honest I am neither proficient nor expert in any arena, just a hopeful beginner!
I have an interest and a tiny bit of experience with Vajrayana.
A good initial primer for Vajrayana is The two volumes by Reginald A Ray, The world of Tibetan Buddhism. Volume 1 Indesructable truth and Volume 2 Secret of the Vajra world.
I have a little (very little) experience and knowledge of advaita/vedanta....however one can not ride two horses, and if your as subject to attachment as me staying on one horse for more than a moment is bloodt difficult!

regards
MM

Hi LB, I agree one must leave the raft behind....
In terms of my forte....to be honest I am neither proficient nor expert in any arena, just a hopeful beginner!
I have an interest and a tiny bit of experience with Vajrayana.
A good initial primer for Vajrayana is The two volumes by Reginald A Ray, The world of Tibetan Buddhism. Volume 1 Indesructable truth and Volume 2 Secret of the Vajra world.
I have a little (very little) experience and knowledge of advaita/vedanta....however one can not ride two horses, and if your as subject to attachment as me staying on one horse for more than a moment is bloodt difficult!

regards
MM

Thanks Mick. Sorry not had chance to reply sooner. I will try and get to look at those books - they look they offer a good overview.

I agree though one horse is more than enough to be riding. I don't think it matters which horse it is if it works for the individual. All roads lead to Rome as they say.