Hi All:
I never studied Franz Barton, though it sounds like one of those analyze-yourself-to-death systems. That is certainly not what I had in mind for turning satire around. It is just the concept of turning a tendency to criticize back in toward the criticizer for spiritual benefit. It is a form of bhakti. If we can redirect our emotions, whatever they may be, toward spiritual practice, then that is the thing.
I suppose if someone is prone to criticize all the time, it could turn into non-stop self-criticism when turned around, which is not a good thing. On the other hand, it can also be morphed into a stronger desire to do yoga practices, which would be a good thing. The point is, all emotions can be transformed to a higher purpose – it is the essential principle of bhakti. Those who are dedicated to doing that are on a high path of yoga, because every thought and feeling is transformed into spiritual practice and progress. See lesson 67 for more on this – http://www.aypsite.org/67.html
Now, did someone say there are some money changers around here somewhere? Harrumph! 
The guru is in you.
Of course the bible has been tampered with so much that you never know the true context of the money changer scene, if it ever happened at all . . .
That’s the problem with religion; the mind tries to model a lifestyle based on reports of how their ideal lived instead of just favoring the mantra and ignoring the scenery.
The problem with critisizing yourself is there are many of us who grew up with so much criticism that it is our natural state to critisize ourselves, and it’s not a healthy thing for us.
Ether,
The value of religions lies not in their historical accuracy but in the eternal truths buried within the myths. In the money changer case its the admonition to keep the “nonspiritual” out of our personal temple.
We can look for these truths in all sorts of places, including pop culture. Its amazing how much is really out there. As for some examples, if you live in the USA you should be familiar with the following sources which air on TV every year.
The Wizard of Oz ---- “Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man that the Tin Man didn’t already have.”
The Charlie Brown Christmas movie ----- The transformation of the ugly little Christmas tree into a thing of beauty through the use of love, faith, and effort.
I agree, LittleDragon. In fact, my favorite discourse on the historical inaccuracy of the bible is written by a reverend who is dedicated to teaching Christianity.
The moneychanger story would have to be for the purpose of teaching the truth behind the myth, because I seriously doubt that a moneychanger himself would learn anything spiritual from such a scene. i could be wrong though. I believe Jesus was of such a consciousness that he could perceive the mental attitude of people, and that whole scene may have been just for one particular person who needed it to learn. I believe Jesus didn’t mean for it to be written down for eternity.
A major problem with religion, however is that literalist thinkers (like me) read the scriptures and instead of trying to perceive truth behind them, try to emulate the details in their own life. I went to a church for a while where the preacher taught that every word of the bible is literal and perfect, and no interpretation is necessary.
So us people who think like that are so much better off at AYP where we get literal instruction on “how to do it” rather than blue-sky theories and metaphorical hidden truths.
Hi LittleDragon:
In the fray, I neglected to welcome you into our midst. Welcome!
There is also the story of Jesus cursing the barren fruit tree – a “Do something or get off the pot!” scenario. I can relate to that in my own spiritual career. Do you think I have a sense of urgency about all of this? You bet. The clock is ticking…
The guru is in you.
So, as I went through the subject matter of this post, and the responses, and listened carefully, what I found was this — no-one was able to convince me that satire and sharp criticism of others are in themselves a bad thing, or necessarily mean, or necessarily unspiritual.
It’s interesting that the example of Jesus is brought up to bring me to book. In fact we have Jesus saying ‘we have the blind leaders of the blind – and see! both fall into the ditch’ – a lovely piece of spiritual satire, but almost no-one saw the man having a sense of humor, so when we hear this, we may imagine him saying it with grim seriousness. Then there was, in response to the grim insistence of getting to the funeral, Jesus’ exclammation, ‘Let the dead bury their dead!’, a social/spiritual commentary so cutting, irreverent, and funny that I wonder if he was swapped for me here in the forum, people would be saying ‘Obsidian, come back, all is forgiven’.
Indeed, the mention of the money-changers at the temple seems to play to my side of the issue — it seems to indicate that Jesus did not believe in delivering his messages always in a nice way. In fact I see a strong parallel between Jesus’ attempt to empty the temple of the money-changers and my attempt to expose the ‘money-changers’/power-grabbers dressed up as spiritual figures and/or organizations. And regarding the implication that spiritual people do not criticize others, it should be noted that it is not logical to believe all three of (i) Jesus is deeply spiritual ; (ii) the deeply spiritual do not harshly criticise other people; and (iii) the gospels are accurate; because of the gospel’s account of Jesus’ scathing criticism of the ‘scribes and pharisees’, which is more severe and accusatory than anything I have ever written here.
Regarding the virtue on applying satire to ourselves, I agree wholeheartedly, and it is a thing I have learned to do myself. You’ll find lots of my self-deprecating wit on the forum. Kudos to Ether and others for enjoying the same thing regularly. One of the great things about self-satire, is that it never offends anyone. People love to see someone not taking themselves too seriously. The effect is healthy all around. It’s been a delight for me to see Yogani taking a stab at self-deprecating wit every now and again too.
But what became obvious is that, whatever the virtues of satire and criticism as general tools, Yogani wants a milder, more welcoming forum, and is not convinced towards my own preferences for a forum that can be at times very contentious and even offensive to some.
Such things are a matter of judgement and preferences, and it is obvious that Yogani’s judgment must guide the forum on this issue. Therefore I happily submit to Yogani’s wishes on the matter. I look forward to continuing to contribute. And I believe controversial issues can still be helpfully discussed, just in a way that is more palatable and less offensive all around.
I would like to thank Yogani for having the patience to thrash the issues out a little.
-D
I have always enjoyed and appreciated Davids wit and humor and I feel sad that it needs to lose some of its spark by being explained, taken apart and anylized. To explain a joke is to spoil it and quality humor is like a spark of light that can make you smile and think at the same time. More power to you I say and if David is the sharpest voice around here then I fear that we will be in more danger of being excessively bland than offensive in any way!
Hi David:
If you told me we have 1,000 gallons of bathwater with one ounce of baby hidden in it, I would say, let’s concentrate on finding the baby and forget about the bathwater. AYP has been about that since the beginning, and I hope it always will be. Nothing bland about it, assuming we are into finding babies instead of processing bathwater.
The guru is in you.
Yogani, I understand your approach. And it’s a totally valid approach.
I don’t think mine is characterized as focussing on the bathwater either. As I was saying before, only a very small fraction of my own posts are of the fault-finding kind that we don’t want. It might be interesting to find what the fraction is. My guess is less than one in twenty.
If we are going to talk about tiny babies in huge tubs of bathwater, lets give me some credit for wanting to remove some of the piranhas, rather than paint the picture that I am focussing on the bathwater.
But as I say, I understand your approach and I believe it has both advantages and disadvantages (as mine does), and I respect it. In fact, (I run a risk of taking the analogy to ridiculous lengths, LOL) I see you as being worried that the piranha-catcher will hurt the baby.
One way I can look at it is this: their are things that are good, but that are outside the culture and focus of AYP. Almost everyone thinks that eliminating global warming and world hunger are good things, but they are outside the focus of AYP. Some things are outside the focus of AYP because of their subject matter; others because of concern about inevitable negative effects which will come with the positive ones. It’s not possible to convince me that harshly exposing certain things is bad, but it is possible to convince me that that would be outside your intended focus for AYP, and philosophy of AYP forum. I’ve been convinced of this already, and I respect your vision.
Best regards,
-David
David
Something that has been occuring to me, which may or may not resonate with you, if it does not then bin it.
It is that satire is the literary expression of anger turned into humour, a bit like sarcasm.
Whilst satire may appear to be noble and has been used for centuries to provoke change, nevertheless it is still an expression of anger.
From the spiritual perspective I would not see this as a valid way of expressing anger. In fact the satirist may not even know they are angry at the thing they satirise, the feeling of the anger may be transformed into this intellectual sword thrust of satire.
Would it not be more beneficial to be aware of the anger, own it as your own and allow it to disolve, and be done with it.
I have to say also, that when I came to this board I took great pleasure in reading most of your posts. Your intellect and wit are a fantastic force here, and long may it continue.
Warmest regards
Louis
Thanks for the compliments Louis.
I think satire is often angry, but not necessarily always.
Did you ever look at Jonathan Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal’? He satirises the lack of concern the British ruling class of the time have for the plight of the starving Irish. The essay is an explanation (from the point of view of the British ruling class) of how the Irish really can solve all these problems by eating their own children.
This stuff could be in the blood.