Something to be understood:

[Lunitik]

No matter the claims of a particular man - whether they proclaim prophet-hood or being an avatar, incarnation or messenger - what is said stems from their own understanding. To remain fixated on a single understanding, which is what the Christian, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, all are doing, can only create problems for you. In any academic paper, never is it acceptable to cite only a single source, and even if you read much within that sphere, you will only get one side of the story - there are an estimated 300 religions on earth, it will be a very small side, even if its acceptance is wide.

Jesus has said you cannot serve two masters, I agree, but then who should be the true master? I say it should be your own experience, that any belief which is not confirmed by direct experience is simple imagination. It cannot be otherwise, for you do not know the intent of the words, without a basic understanding going in, whatever you comprehend will be false. This is even true of my own words, for when I speak they cease to be truth, they are merely an attempt to express truth externally, and then you paint them with your own color upon reading them.

You will have to look at it from as many angles as possible to gain a better understanding, a better idea of what you are looking for. Yet ultimately this idea will have to be dropped as well, you will actually have to look for yourself, you will have to accept whatsoever you find. It is better to not read so much, just enough to get an idea, just enough perspectives that you can at least be sure your understanding is valid. The more you acquire, the more you will have to drop, so do not gather much. You will be in deep trouble if your mind begins to think it knows!

Now, with a general thesis statement, you can begin looking to see if it is true. Of course, whatsoever you find you will call whatever you are most familiar with calling it, you cannot call it something else, you cannot name it something new because no one will understand. Besides, if you name it, it is something distinct from you, it remains dualistic.

All spiritual seeking is ultimately to discover who the seeker is.

Good luck.

 

[Etu Malku]

No matter the claims of a particular man - whether they proclaim prophet-hood or being an avatar, incarnation or messenger - what is said stems from their own understanding. To remain fixated on a single understanding, which is what the Christian, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, all are doing, can only create problems for you. In any academic paper, never is it acceptable to cite only a single source, and even if you read much within that sphere, you will only get one side of the story - there are an estimated 300 religions on earth, it will be a very small side, even if its acceptance is wide.

Jesus has said you cannot serve two masters, I agree, but then who should be the true master? I say it should be your own experience, that any belief which is not confirmed by direct experience is simple imagination. It cannot be otherwise, for you do not know the intent of the words, without a basic understanding going in, whatever you comprehend will be false. This is even true of my own words, for when I speak they cease to be truth, they are merely an attempt to express truth externally, and then you paint them with your own color upon reading them.

You will have to look at it from as many angles as possible to gain a better understanding, a better idea of what you are looking for. Yet ultimately this idea will have to be dropped as well, you will actually have to look for yourself, you will have to accept whatsoever you find. It is better to not read so much, just enough to get an idea, just enough perspectives that you can at least be sure your understanding is valid. The more you acquire, the more you will have to drop, so do not gather much. You will be in deep trouble if your mind begins to think it knows!

Now, with a general thesis statement, you can begin looking to see if it is true. Of course, whatsoever you find you will call whatever you are most familiar with calling it, you cannot call it something else, you cannot name it something new because no one will understand. Besides, if you name it, it is something distinct from you, it remains dualistic.

All spiritual seeking is ultimately to discover who the seeker is.

Good luck.

Very well said Lunitik, I'm down with most of that, thanks for posting it.

 

[Thomas]

No matter the claims of a particular man - whether they proclaim prophet-hood or being an avatar, incarnation or messenger - what is said stems from their own understanding.

OK

To remain fixated on a single understanding...

OK

In any academic paper, never is it acceptable to cite only a single source...

OK

but then who should be the true master? I say it should be your own experience...

OK ... then what you argue says:

1: What you say stems from your own understanding, which is no more true nor less fallible than mine or anyone else's.

2: You don't cite sources, in fact you refute them if they do not coincide with your own understanding.

3: Yet, if one thinks about it, a reasonable person will know that one's own experience is fallible, prone to error and assumption.

So the conclusion of your own argument is there is no reason why anyone should pay attention to your argument, which rests on nothing but your claim to infallibility.

It's the Philosophy of Relativism writ large ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

G!d Bless, Thomas! Someone who recognizes solipsism!

 

[Lunitik]

1: What you say stems from your own understanding, which is no more true nor less fallible than mine or anyone else's.

No, it comes from experience, not understanding. When understanding is based in the mind, it is certain to be flawed, this is why I say reading scripture is not at all reliable - you are imagining what it might mean, you do not know.

This is must obvious in Christianity, for there are 40,000 disagreements on what exactly is intended - each chasm is for exactly this reason.

2: You don't cite sources, in fact you refute them if they do not coincide with your own understanding.

What source can be valid when it disagrees with experience? If I cite a thousand sources saying grass is pink, are you going to accept it is not actually green? I do not refute any source though, it only looks that way because you do not know what is intended.

3: Yet, if one thinks about it, a reasonable person will know that one's own experience is fallible, prone to error and assumption.

Conclusions about experiences, and essentially anything subject to mind can be flawed. Yet you trust the experiences of the scriptures as though they are infallible, all I am saying is see whether what I say can be confirmed by you. If it can then you have confirmed it, but if you believe me it is impossible to know whether I am actually right or wrong.

This is why I say do not trust ANY scripture, try it out for yourself, see its authenticity. If the experience is not available to you, it should be considered false.

So the conclusion of your own argument is there is no reason why anyone should pay attention to your argument, which rests on nothing but your claim to infallibility.

Certainly, they should not, nor anyone elses, they should go deeply into themselves and see what rings true for them. I do not claim infallibility, in fact every word I utter I realize it fallible for the simple reason it is an attempt to translate truth into language.

 

[Lunitik]

I find it extremely strange when people insist someones experience must be flawed because it disagrees with their scriptures. Why is Jesus or Krishna or Buddha infallible? They too are speaking on their experience, what is the difference? Many will say Buddha is right, so where Jesus or Krishna disagree they are wrong, others will choose a different one and say the others are wrong. What can be certain is that each has experienced something that is not normal in human experience, we must endeavor to look deeply into this...

Now, in my experience, what is found is that each are partly right, and each are partly wrong. Some things people take on faith have been nothing but devices it seems to me, others are simply the unique experience of a particular figure. I did not trust any of them exactly because there is no consensus, thus I had to find out truth for myself. Now I can look at each and see what they have meant, now I can love each because they have tried to show this to others.

All conflict between who is right and who is wrong is gone from me exactly because I can see why each is right, I do not have any loyalty to any, for these are men who have been loyal only to truth itself. I my self am loyal only to truth as well, and truth does not need beliefs or dogmas, it is immune to all fallacy because it simply is, it is not subject to anything but itself.

What you call this truth is irrelevant, but understand your beliefs cannot point at it, you must discover it for yourself, and has always been within your capacity to find it. God is a belief, incarnation is a belief, karma is belief, Kingdom of God is belief, heaven is belief... you must find their reality. Now it cannot be taken away, it cannot be threatened, and there is no need to defend it. You can merely present to people a way to encounter it themselves, and if they choose not to it is on them, it does not affect what you have found.

This is what I am concerned with, how to go directly, how to drop nonsense and know for yourself. Nothing else can possibly be valid, for all else is created in the imagination. We are looking for the one who has watched the imagination, can that one have any attributes? All attributes come from outside, either through the parents physically, or from interactions in society as far as personality.

Who is the one which observes all this, yet is untouched by any of it?

 

[Thomas]

I find it extremely strange when people insist someones experience must be flawed because it disagrees with their scriptures.

Scripture is not being discussed here. It's the flaw in your argument that you need to address.

Why is Jesus or Krishna or Buddha infallible?

Not the point. It's why you think you are infallible.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

No, it comes from experience, not understanding.

One interprets one's experience according to one's understanding.

What source can be valid when it disagrees with experience?

Depends on how ego-centric you are.

If I cite a thousand sources saying grass is pink, are you going to accept it is not actually green?

You set up a nonsense argument, as if making a point. All you're doing is demonstrating how weak your position is.

Conclusions about experiences, and essentially anything subject to mind can be flawed.

Good, then you make my point.

... all I am saying is see whether what I say can be confirmed by you.

And what I am saying is the answer to that question is no ... it rests on your claim to infallibility, which is demonstrably not the case.

This is why I say do not trust ANY scripture, try it out for yourself, see its authenticity. If the experience is not available to you, it should be considered false.

Utter rubbish. The assumption is that you are the benchmark of all truth, that all experience must surrender itself to you, in its entirety, simply because you exist.

The ego of such a statement is breath-taking: "If I can't see it, there's nothing there to be seen."

Get over yourself, Lunitik, how about 'if the experience is not available to you, then maybe you're not up to the experience.'

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

Scripture is not being discussed here. It's the flaw in your argument that you need to address.

Scripture is merely a particular past figures experience, how can it remain at all meaningful when people encounter it directly themselves? No, after experience, scripture will simply look like dead words, for now you know the beauty, and how impotent the description is.

Not the point. It's why you think you are infallible.

Please follow along, I do not say I am infallible at all, but certainly the truth I try to convey is infallible. Still, my words cannot be any less infallible than any scripture, for no scripture is written by one who has experienced themselves, all are commentaries on a particular one who has experienced.

Truth is outside language because it is beyond mind, to convey something I must pick a side to convey to you something about it. Automatically, it has ceased to be totally true, yet this is the problem all scriptures have.

This is why I prefer to point towards that place rather than say anything about it. All words fail to give it its full justice, but how else to bring others towards it?

 

[Lunitik]

One interprets one's experience according to one's understanding.

Yes, and any interpretation is bound to be wrong for that reason, yet the experience itself, untouched by mind, remains pure.

Depends on how ego-centric you are.

Certainly, thus if your interpretations are specific to a particular faith, I must say that you remain ego-identified. It is precisely this which calls me to question whether you have experienced anything at all, because your ego remains utterly focused on Christ.

You set up a nonsense argument, as if making a point. All you're doing is demonstrating how weak your position is.

It is, for me, exactly as ridiculous as your argument.

Good, then you make my point.

Do I?

My point is that mind must not be allowed to come back in and corrupt it, your point is that someone elses mind is more trustworthy.

And what I am saying is the answer to that question is no ... it rests on your claim to infallibility, which is demonstrably not the case.

Why do you insist I claim infallibility?

Utter rubbish. The assumption is that you are the benchmark of all truth, that all experience must surrender itself to you, in its entirety, simply because you exist.

Not I, but experience itself.

If you cannot experience what someone has said, it must be dropped. I must say that everything Jesus claims about himself, I have experienced directly. This is entirely why I can love him.

The ego of such a statement is breath-taking: "If I can't see it, there's nothing there to be seen."

How much more egoistic that if it disagrees with your identifications it is false? Everything I have seen in any scripture, I have been able to experience directly, why will you not even put them to the test?

Get over yourself, Lunitik, how about 'if the experience is not available to you, then maybe you're not up to the experience.'

I have found nothing which this is a valid statement for.

My words are not intended to disprove religion, friend, they are concerned with direct confirmation. I have yet to find anything which is not accessible to my own experience, the only reason you are defensive is because you do not think some things you believe in would stand up to this test.

I would only say that perhaps you should question your beliefs if this is the case, for I tell you these men are not special, they are merely pointing at the heights of human experience.

 

[Thomas]

Please follow along, I do not say I am infallible at all, but certainly the truth I try to convey is infallible.

What you are saying is your experience is infallible.

It's what the Philosophy of Relativism is all about.

Still, my words cannot be any less infallible than any scripture...

You are the equal, at the very least, of the aggregated experience of human wisdom.

All words fail to give it its full justice, but how else to bring others towards it?

By 'it' you mean 'me' ...
God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Yes, and any interpretation is bound to be wrong for that reason, yet the experience itself, untouched by mind, remains pure.

No, by the very act of 'experience' you are involved, you cannot not be.

Certainly, thus if your interpretations are specific to a particular faith ...

As are yours. Stop trying to deflect the discussion.

My point is that mind must not be allowed to come back in and corrupt it, your point is that someone else's mind is more trustworthy.

No, the point is your mind is playing you.

Everything you claim as authenticating your position is the very order of phenomena a skilled meditation teacher would warn you against.

Why do you insist I claim infallibility?

Because you assume your interpretation of your experience is beyond doubt.

Not I, but experience itself.

You're assuming the two are synonymous.

There's no such thing as 'experience' outside the experiencing subject. Experience is neither 'this' nor 'that. it's what 'this' makes of 'that'.

You follow the path of the modern escapist ... you reduce the real to abstractions, and render the abstract real. It's a radical failure of faith that so infects the modern mind, that it invents its own utopias.

If you cannot experience what someone has said, it must be dropped.

To paraphrase: If at first you don't succeed. Give up.
(Sour grapes syndrome.)

I must say that everything Jesus claims about himself, I have experienced directly. This is entirely why I can love him.

I know. But what it tells me is you love yourself, and project that on Him. He is, as is so often the case today, 'the Jesus of your own invention'.

The short answer, Lunitik, is that were you actually who you claim to be, your words would be insightful, inspirational, luminous, breath-taking ... but they're not, and that is a key marker.

I have seen that light in the words of Christians (obviously), but also in Daoists, Buddhists, Sufis, Moslems, Brahmins ... indeed, I bet Radarmark and I could spot a scribe of the Sophia Perennis at a mile's distance ...

Answer me this: why should anything give itself up to you?

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

What you are saying is your experience is infallible.

It's what the Philosophy of Relativism is all about.

Certainly it is, if I do not attempt to interpret it.

This is exactly why I am more interested in bringing others to the experience than I am in telling people the ramifications. For me, it is utterly wrong to try to interpret it for others, yet this is the nature of all scripture. People need to encounter it for themselves instead of just trusting a text.

 

[Lunitik]

The short answer, Lunitik, is that were you actually who you claim to be, your words would be insightful, inspirational, luminous, breath-taking ... but they're not, and that is a key marker.

I am interested in bringing others to light, I am not interested in impressing your mind with empty words. Truth becomes limited as soon as words are spoken, you do not understand why this is. You will only be impressed if you feel this agrees with what you think, I am interested in causing something to happen beyond thought. You are content with going through others to understand, I tell you this is not a way to understanding at all, you will interpret everything you read and that is always fallible.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Originally Posted by Thomas
The short answer, Lunitik, is that were you actually who you claim to be, your words would be insightful, inspirational, luminous, breath-taking ... but they're not, and that is a key marker.

Can the writting on the wall be read?

Wow. Maybe there is a miraclous ability to write here by a "person" that cannot read. Hmm?

 

[iBrian]

1: What you say stems from your own understanding, which is no more true nor less fallible than mine or anyone else's.

2: You don't cite sources, in fact you refute them if they do not coincide with your own understanding.

3: Yet, if one thinks about it, a reasonable person will know that one's own experience is fallible, prone to error and assumption.

So the conclusion of your own argument is there is no reason why anyone should pay attention to your argument, which rests on nothing but your claim to infallibility.

So we should instead have spiritual truth dictated to us by other fallible people, because so long as other fallible people reference them, the "wisdom of the masses" makes it true?