Featured Title:
Stones Playing Cards, great gift idea |
 |
| Solving Stonehenge, the new key to an ancient enigma |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 116 guests and 6 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Stones Forum >> Offerings at stones
|
 |
| Page 3 of 6 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 ) |
| Author |
Offerings at stones |
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 19-07-2007 at 15:04
my knowledge of buddhism is pretty limited, but surely this kind of dependence on the perceived "Psych/spiritual or emotional" benefits would distract a buddhist from their path to freedom?
[/quote]
Hi Laughing,
'dependence on perceived' Firstly accepting that something maybe useful for ones personal development (or in fact someone else's) does not constitute dependence.One may use a boat to travel across a river (as part of a longer journey) one does not carry the boat around after it is no longer useful but also one does not either smash the boat or condemn another for using it, who maybe needs it.
As for distraction from the path, I am sorry but you will need to explain what you mean by both path and freedom.
Regards
MM
 Profile
 Reply
|
Laughing_Ball
Joined:
13-08-2006
Messages: 888
from North West
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-07-2007 at 18:22
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 15:04, MuddyMick wrote:
my knowledge of buddhism is pretty limited, but surely this kind of dependence on the perceived "Psych/spiritual or emotional" benefits would distract a buddhist from their path to freedom?
|
|
Hi Laughing,
'dependence on perceived' Firstly accepting that something maybe useful for ones personal development (or in fact someone else's) does not constitute dependence.One may use a boat to travel across a river (as part of a longer journey) one does not carry the boat around after it is no longer useful but also one does not either smash the boat or condemn another for using it, who maybe needs it.
As for distraction from the path, I am sorry but you will need to explain what you mean by both path and freedom.
Regards
MM
[/quote]
Attachment - the cause of suffering caused by clinging to transient things such as objects, ideas and the self
Freedom - liberation from the cylce of clinging and suffering
Which is why I was saying from a buddhist perspective, one might not be unduly aroused by a megaliths destruction.
Profile
Reply
|
mikecroley
Joined:
27-10-2006
Messages: 1655
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-07-2007 at 18:36
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 14:11, Laughing_Ball wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-07-19 11:20, KenWilliams wrote:
Promoting non-interference sounds like a reasonable policy to me, the only reasons to think otherwise seem to be blatantly selfish but if there are other sides to it that haven't been mentioned I'd love to hear them guys.
|
|
Yes - otherwise, what is to stop every Tom, Dick or Harry 'doing what they will' with sites? Or should... to take an extreme example, Mike C. be given the freedom to destroy Stonehenge, because of his beliefs?
[/quote]
I've always had the freedom to do it LB, I'm just not adept enough to carry it through just yet. It'll come to me one day. 
mike
Profile
Reply
|
Laughing_Ball
Joined:
13-08-2006
Messages: 888
from North West
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-07-2007 at 19:28
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 18:36, mikecroley wrote:
I've always had the freedom to do it LB, I'm just not adept enough to carry it through just yet. It'll come to me one day.
mike
|
|
Godspeed Mike. We're all counting on you! 
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1605
from The New Forest
 ON-Line
| Posted 19-07-2007 at 19:37
Quote:
|
Which is why I was saying from a buddhist perspective, one might not be unduly aroused by a megaliths destruction.
|
|
Oh yeah?...
http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2001/3/5_1.html
Profile
Reply
|
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-07-2007 at 10:49
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 19:37, davidmorgan wrote:
[quote]
Which is why I was saying from a buddhist perspective, one might not be unduly aroused by a megaliths destruction.
|
|
Oh yeah?...
http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2001/3/5_1.html
[/quote]
Slightly out of context, and unduly aroused......mmmm I would not suggest (and neither does the link) that His Holiness is unduly aroused!
Regards
MM
Profile
Reply
|
Aluta
Joined:
06-04-2002
Messages: 1534
from PA, USA
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-07-2007 at 11:46
Quote:
| Some people can't see the bigger picture beyond their own belief-crutch, to those on the outside their 'offerings' are as relevant placed on a post box as an ancient heritage site since any claim at continuity is obviously a fallacy, the only difference is postboxes have not survived thousands of years as a direct result of non-interference. |
|
I don't see where continuity is relevant. Some places when you go to them feel as if they're worthy of veneration. I'm not talking about "if you're a pagan" or "if you're a Wiccan" or anything like that. I just mean as a human being. I remember having that feeling in certain places, for example in the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., as a child. You go to some places and there's an awe or a hush that comes over you. It's not hard to see why, particularly in a time of trouble, one might be moved to take an offering to such a site, one that moves in him the sense of something greater.
It's part of that thing where for some people the landscape is analogous or possibly equal to the landscape of the mind or self, and going to a place that evokes awe is like going to the place in yourself where it is real that something greater exists outside yourself. It helps you access the mystical or divine that is otherwise hard to reach from our mundane day-to-day reality. You don't need any kind of new age dogma for that to be true for you.
Profile
Reply
|
Laughing_Ball
Joined:
13-08-2006
Messages: 888
from North West
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 00:39
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 15:04, MuddyMick wrote:
One may use a boat to travel across a river (as part of a longer journey) one does not carry the boat around after it is no longer useful but also one does not either smash the boat or condemn another for using it, who maybe needs it.
|
|
Yes, I think your right, I'm perhaps polarising things a bit too much, reflecting my attempts to integrate my own ordinary and less-ordinary states.
For me personally, I am really drawn to sites on one hand but if I am in what I perceive to be in a transcendant state, then they mean nothing at all. Neither do beautiful surroundings, which I know seems to be the opposite of many peoples experineces.
Profile
Reply
|
Aluta
Joined:
06-04-2002
Messages: 1534
from PA, USA
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 01:27
Quote:
|
Yes, I think your right, I'm perhaps polarising things a bit too much, reflecting my attempts to integrate my own ordinary and less-ordinary states.
For me personally, I am really drawn to sites on one hand but if I am in what I perceive to be in a transcendant state, then they mean nothing at all. Neither do beautiful surroundings, which I know seems to be the opposite of many peoples experineces.
|
|
I know what you mean. In some transcendent states, everything seems as perfect as everything else, litter in the gutter and the dappled sunset-lit clouds together, all part of some perfect greater whole.
Profile
Reply
|
Chyknel2
Joined:
27-05-2007
Messages: 2258
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 13:19
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-21 01:27, Aluta wrote:
I know what you mean. In some transcendent states, everything seems as perfect as everything else, litter in the gutter and the dappled sunset-lit clouds together, all part of some perfect greater whole.
|
|
Wordsworth had identical experiences. But they are private ones, and should stay so. Imposing one's perceptions on ancient sites in a physical form such as offerings seems to me simply impolite, and unfair on the next stakeholder that comes along. If they belong to everyone then they should be everyone's blank canvas, not someone else's daubed one.
Profile
Reply
|
Laughing_Ball
Joined:
13-08-2006
Messages: 888
from North West
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 14:18
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-21 13:19, Chyknel2 wrote:
Wordsworth had identical experiences. But they are private ones, and should stay so. Imposing one's perceptions on ancient sites in a physical form such as offerings seems to me simply impolite, and unfair on the next stakeholder that comes along. If they belong to everyone then they should be everyone's blank canvas, not someone else's daubed one.
|
|
Why should people not talk about non-ordinary experiences, they can be bewildering to say the least and it seems to me that in a secular society it may be very necesary talk about, map and understand them - if for nothing else, to keep people out of the loony bin.
I agree about leaving stuff at sights - does seem tacky and disrespectful.
Whilst out walking the other day, I passed a lovely tree by the side of the path, the tree had tacky pictures of Madeline McCann tied on with ribbons. I noticed it was not in the forest, but on the path where people would see it, and I couldn't help thinking why can't they do it in their own bloody garden.
[ This message was edited by: Laughing_Ball on 2007-07-21 16:44 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Aluta
Joined:
06-04-2002
Messages: 1534
from PA, USA
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 14:21
That last was just an answer to what LB said and was not meant in reference to the stones at all. It was about experiences one has away from such sites, in fact.
Regardless of what anyone thinks or says or legislates, though, it's human nature to honour what awes you, and for some that will mean bringing offerings, especially in times of trouble or illness and death of loved ones. For others, removing those offerings will no doubt be their way of honouring the site, and that is equally respectful and respectable. Humans are many and varied and meant to be so.
In many areas of human concern, abstinence-only policies often seem to be the answer, but they tend to overlook inevitable realities.
Profile
Reply
|
mikecroley
Joined:
27-10-2006
Messages: 1655
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 20:55
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-21 13:19, Chyknel2 wrote:
If they belong to everyone then they should be everyone's blank canvas, not someone else's daubed one.
|
|
They don't belong to everyone so stop your carping.
mike
Profile
Reply
|
mikecroley
Joined:
27-10-2006
Messages: 1655
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 21:01
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-21 14:21, Aluta wrote:
That last was just an answer to what LB said and was not meant in reference to the stones at all. It was about experiences one has away from such sites, in fact.
Regardless of what anyone thinks or says or legislates, though, it's human nature to honour what awes you, and for some that will mean bringing offerings, especially in times of trouble or illness and death of loved ones. For others, removing those offerings will no doubt be their way of honouring the site, and that is equally respectful and respectable. Humans are many and varied and meant to be so.
In many areas of human concern, abstinence-only policies often seem to be the answer, but they tend to overlook inevitable realities.
|
|
What about those folk who want to experiment Aluta? Those who don't consider these places sacred at all.
mike
Profile
Reply
|
Chyknel2
Joined:
27-05-2007
Messages: 2258
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 21:50
Quote:
|
They don't belong to everyone so stop your carping.
mike |
|
Please educate me.
Who, if not everyone, do they belong to?
Profile
Reply
|
Aluta
Joined:
06-04-2002
Messages: 1534
from PA, USA
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 22:02
Really all I was saying, Mike, is that people are going to do what they feel is right to do no matter what anyone says. Some people seemed to be implying that everyone who leaves offerings does so out of some flighty affectation, but I think that many people only do so after being deeply moved or for other deeply and sincerely held reasons. I can imagine, for example, if someone with whom I'd visited sites, or to whom a certain site was very special, died, I might be moved to take a flower to that site and leave it there discreetly in his honour. It might very well feel to me as if some part of that person's essence were still there at that place he so loved. An offering might be a way of ritualising that connection.
Like everyone else, Mike, you're going to do what you are inspired to do, right? Maybe at least at the sites we could all pretend to be a part of the same varied but loving family, and tolerate one another's foibles.
Unrealistically idealistic. 
Profile
Reply
|
mikecroley
Joined:
27-10-2006
Messages: 1655
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 22:04
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-21 21:50, Chyknel2 wrote:
[quote]
They don't belong to everyone so stop your carping.
mike |
|
Please educate me.
Who, if not everyone, do they belong to?
[/quote]
No, we've done this all before downstairs. You already know the answers chykers.
mike
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5549
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 21-07-2007 at 22:38
Mike Croley,
You must admit that Chyknels carping is quality?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDAqx3KSilE
The offerings at sites are based on a powerfull " something"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBe85UKa1GQ
If we experiment and get this something working correctly, we may actually achieve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXG83p2nkHw
Kevin
Chyknel is the one with the sceptical glasses with the flowers upon.
in hey Jude.
[ This message was edited by: cropredy on 2007-07-21 22:52 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Chyknel2
Joined:
27-05-2007
Messages: 2258
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-07-2007 at 06:34
Well!
I suggest the sites belong to all, a proposition that goes to the very heart of the issue, Mike says they don't but won't elaborate, Aluta seems to imply people will always use them as their own and we should simply tolerate it and Cropredy reiterates that I'm carping to suggest they're communal.
I'm personally not against a few flowers here and there (even though I personally would prefer my sites untouched) but really, if there's no basic recognition that the sites are common heritage, there for all, and that we all impact upon each other and have obligations that are even more compelling than our rights, its a shame. Aluta, have you read the Aslan charter? Or the Megalithic Webmasters one? Can we agree those are a pretty good basis for compromise and agreement? We have to have an agreement between competing views on how to behave at sites else we're all losers. I really don't think you should offer the compromise "some people can leave stuff to show they honour sites, others can clear up after them to show they honour sites". As Socrates so often said, What a blinking cheek!
Profile
Reply
|
Aluta
Joined:
06-04-2002
Messages: 1534
from PA, USA
OFF-Line
| Posted 22-07-2007 at 11:30
If we're going to argue for the millionth time, C, hadn't we better take it to the mysteries forum where we don't bother the nice people?
I will add that if indeed the sites belong to everyone, then it seems to me that any behaviour that does not change the site for others or disturb others visiting at the same time shoud be tolerated. From your logic, the places belong just as much to those who are moved to leave offerings as to those who would prefer them removed.
Yes, I have no lack of cheek. I may remember to put a U in behaviour, but I am just an American.
[ This message was edited by: Aluta on 2007-07-22 12:10 ]
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News