A spiritual person is...

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Kenneth, Apr 24, 2011.

  1. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Hi Lunitik —
    And I have stated why I believe your assumption has missed the vital part.

    I do not discuss my personal life here. The point is however, that if the higher realms are 'haphazard, chaotic or anarchic' then any dialogue is void because nothing can be meaningfully said about anything, can it, because nothing is certain or lasting.

    Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. Many Western pop commentators, interested in selling books, would claim so, but the real deal, as it were, always stand by the fact that one's own experience has to be tested and viewed from within a traditional framework.

    If not, then you're claiming infallibility.

    Show me how so?

    It's not a case of true or false, rather it's in the nature of things. One man's esoterism is another man's exoterism. As someone once declared, "esoterism is too often just knowledge with an unhealthy dose of ego".

    Qwell, you're welcome to your own opinion, but I view 'religion' in light of its primary purpose.

    You seriously think America is conducting this conflict in defence of, and for the benefit of, Christianity?

    Ah, it annoyed them no end, especially as what He was saying they knew to be true.

    Oh dear, is this sarcasm again?

    OK. And at what point is God 'removed'? And where to, may I ask?

    Oh good grief! You mean you have something better to do? Or you're more important than God?

    There is a metaphysical condition called 'rest', which means a given nature has attained its perfection ... what more can it do? Nothing. What more can it be? Nothing. Where else can it go? ... I assume you get the point.

    It's only humanity, locked in its contingency, that aks the questions you are asking, or makes the assumptions you are making.

    No you don't, that's evidently apparent.

    Sounds like you've never met a decent Christian. Or maybe your prejudice blinds you to the truth.

    Wrong. If that were the case, there'd be no doctrine on sin, or sanctity, would there?

    Yes, Buddha is a human state (Enlightened). Christ is a divine state. In Christianity, you are taught to be 'in Christ' which is to be 'in God'. Can't get higher than that.

    What you see as an avoidance, is actually a transcendence, it's just that you've missed the point by making certain erroneous suppositions.

    You don't really understand the first thing about my teachings, that is evident. What you understand is the same order of polemical opinion I can get from almost anyone.

    By way of example, St Augustine said, of the Eucharist:
    "Be what you can see, and receive what you are"
    Sermon 272


    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  2. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Topic posted in the Christianity group.
     
  3. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    61
    Ananda Sutta
     
  4. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then I have missed it, feel free to further elucidate.

    I am suggesting there is no "higher realm", if you know better, then that is fine. Where there is plurality, it is necessary that there be the appearance of chaos. If there were higher realms of existence, they would comply with the same laws as this realm - ie, that of course and effect, theory of relativity, karma. Does it trouble you that there is no meaning to existence, that it simply is because it is? All existence is impermanent, ever changing. In Hindu philosophy, for example, existence as we know it is merely the breath of Brahma, the exhalation, upon inhalation existence ceases. Indeed, even Brahma will die, however, for Brahma is not the absolute. Brahma is merely the creation of Brahman, another part of existence. Beyond existence entirely is Brahman, the original cause.

    I claim nothing, I only tell you what I have discovered. My knowledge is not complete by any stretch, thus it can only be fallible. It is impossible that it be anything else, for both my comprehension and tools for communication are limited. What I have said is still accurate within those confines however.

    I spent the rest of the paragraph explaining how so...

    This is not what is meant by esoteric in this usage, an esoteric school is a school which is only joined through initiation. However, what you state about esoteric and exoteric is equally flawed. Every belief you have has been rationalized esoterically, all that is exoteric is the rituals which confirm it. It is necessary that you form personal ideas about all abstract concepts which you have not experienced, for you have no point of reference. It is only free from ego if you realize the ego is an illusion, otherwise it is necessarily shaped by it. The entire concept of heaven and everlasting life are functions of egotistical greed.

    The word means "to re-bind", it can have no other purpose, for otherwise we change the root meaning of the word.

    Yes, this is confirmed simply by listening to Bush's speeches relating to God.

    Did they? I am sure they held their traditions just as firmly as Christians do today.

    Somewhat, however the question is still valid, show me that Christ has never left. In Buddhist and Hindu traditions it is easy to see, for there are living Buddha's and Brahman's to this day, I am unaware of any Christ's on earth.

    God was not there, for he is a view. Satori is the experience of the ultimate, the interconnected consciousness of the Universe. All concepts that confirm plurality must be dropped to know it, through a belief in God as separate, we maintain a dual mind... the Bible itself tells us this is not so, for it says we have our being in God, we are a part of God. Religion is about realizing this through experiencing it, knowing that all insistence on individuality is against this oneness.

    I think I already answer this in the previous stanza, after physical life ceases there is no longer a boundary unless you insist on it. In Western thought, if you insist on clinging to individuality you are reborn, if you reach Moksha or Nirvana, you understand this is unnecessary and merge utterly with God, Brahman, the interconnected. There is no longer a you at all, it can perhaps be said that being reborn is a form of hell in these beliefs, for life is an endless cycle of suffering. It is inevitable that we suffer if we remain distinct.

    I beg to differ, rather, it only humanity that wishes to believe they will live forever, we are obsessed with death, with ceasing to be what we perceive we are. Religion is about realizing this fallacy, about realizing the truth behind our delusion. If it takes us deeper into illusion, it has done harm.

    Honestly, it is more like a nightmare to me. Being is fun, but it gets redundant. I am grateful for the experience, but I am barely 1/3 of the way through the expected span of it. This earth is something like 4.5 billion years old, I cannot fathom it. I certainly do not wish to experience this kind of longevity.

    Superficial means surface deep, they may act as they perceive saintly people should, but nothing genuine is attained. I recently attended a Catholic baptism, during this ceremony the higher three energy centers are included in the ritual. When asking the priest if he knew what they meant, he had no idea the significance. Christianity points at spiritual practice, but it has lost its knowledge of it.

    Christians are taught we are all sinners, that sin is unavoidable. You deny this? If you do, explain the need for repentance. On Catholic television, priests and bishops confess their own trials and need for forgiveness, justifying their sins variously as unavoidable. This is what I mean, and my statement is certainly true.

    Enlightenment is variously described as "enjoining with God" by various schools that hold such beliefs, however the difference is that one maintains plurality, while the other teaches the realization of oneness. Jesus was a mere man, not unlike Sidhartha... Christ and Buddha are their attainment, their enlightenment. To hold that they are something else, that there status is unattainable by men, is to limit ourselves or glorify them. This is an act of egotism, making oneself distinct among peers. At the same time, I fully accept that both have merged with God, are after Enlightenment essentially God's on earth. This is the error of the Christian Church, however, through giving power to men which have not attained this state to define it, they have not understood it. They are devotee's of Christ, but they are not enlightened men, they cannot be for their explanations prove their lack of understanding.
     
  5. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ahh, so Buddha is specifically avoiding alignment with the Hindu teachings about Atman, although his conclusion seems to confirm anyway. Non-self and self as delusion appears to be one in the same, but self and no self are merely opposite views confirming a self in different ways. Perhaps since his time, the concept of atman has evolved to align with his teaching through realization of his intent.

    Thank you for the link.
     
  6. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    False. The words are relevant whether I explain what they mean to me, or not. Do your own homework.

    I have expressed that reducing the mind to no thoughts, and correspondingly the body to no action, is not the method for being one with anyone, including God.

    I have stated several delusions that I see by your words, but your experience from meditation is not one of them. I am sure it is very real and orgasmic for you to think nothing and do nothing. Are you an extremist? Do you think you are either delusional, or not delusional? Either using your mind, or not using your mind?

    I have stated that you are not truly aware of people except through interaction.

    Can you show me in the Torah, Gospel, or Koran, or even the words of Buddha, where you think the term 'faith' is used in the way that you used it in that statement?

    It is not surprising that your idea of being spiritual does not involve communication, or really being loving, even calling it a distraction. For what you call being spiritual, apathy is the closest word that comes to mind.

    There is being loving, and hateful, and then there is that meditative absence of both.
    There is being honest and dishonest with others, and there is that meditative absence of both.
    There is faith and war with others, and then there is that meditative absence of both.
     
  7. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    61
    The question on the self is one to be put aside:
    Pañha Sutta: Questions


    "There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
    First the categorical answer, then the qualified, third, the type to be counter-questioned, & fourth, the one to be set aside.

    Any monk who knows which is which, in line with the Dhamma, is said to be skilled in the four types of questions: hard to overcome, hard to beat, profound, hard to defeat. He knows what's worthwhile & what's not, proficient in (recognizing) both, he rejects the worthless, grasps the worthwhile. He's called one who has broken through to what's worthwhile, prudent, wise.​
     
  8. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, it is an impossible question to justifiably answer to someone which does not know... the discussion with luecy in this thread is sort of displaying the wisdom in this :p
     
  9. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have explained already what they mean for me.

    I have categorically disputed this, especially the latter statement. Thoughts necessitate plurality, and thus do not permit realization of oneness. You are free to disagree, but I am growing tired of stating this.

    In fact, I am a seeker of balance in every way, you are the extremist among us, for you do not seem to fathom that it is possible to practice spiritual discipline and then act upon it with others. You do not seem to fathom that it is possible to only leave a meditative state when it is necessary to communicate with another, apparently you are under the impression that the complete awareness of this state actually makes you less functional when performing various tasks. It is not a balance when you favour spiritual or material over the other, but at the same time - where plurality is not a prerequisite - it is possible to integrate both.

    I have stated nothing of the sort, what I have stated is that it is not possible to experience oneness while engaging other people - the very act of engaging another is to cease oneness, there are now two.

    None of these books were written in English, here is what our dictionary has to say about the word:

    faith

    [feyth]
    –noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

    2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

    3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


    (emphasis added, for this is my use of the word... since it was not a quote of scripture, it is not necessary to substantiate it through scripture)

    How exactly do you draw the conclusion that my idea of spirituality is not about being loving when I have stated meditation is the perfection of love? Spiritual and meditative are not synonyms.
     
  10. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    61
    Please check out Psalm 1
    1 How happy is the man
    who does not follow the advice of the wicked,
    or take the path of sinners,
    or join a group of mockers!
    2 Instead, his delight is in the LORD's instruction,
    and he meditates on it day and night.
    3 He is like a tree planted beside streams of water
    that bears its fruit in season
    and whose leaf does not wither.
    Whatever he does prospers.
    4 The wicked are not like this;
    instead, they are like chaff that the wind blows away.
    5 Therefore the wicked will not survive the judgment,
    and sinners will not be in the community of the righteous.
    6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
    but the way of the wicked leads to ruin. ​
    Thank you.
     
  11. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can of course act on the knowledge of oneness within the plurality, please do not mistake my words. I only state that it ceases to be realized, not that it ceases to be known. Almost every word I have committed to this thread is an instance of plurality referring to the singular, but I am not in a meditative state, I am not realizing the oneness while I convey them. Without spiritual practice, I do not believe it is possible to realize this oneness at all, although it is perhaps possible to intellectualize it reasonably.
     
  12. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you.

    I don't see any mocking here: to do as others do without thinking upon it and conscientiously questioning their instruction. Do you? Note that Jesus conversed and interacted with sinners. I see a polar difference in the use of the word: meditation. I would call that form of meditation, thinking, because to think upon someone's instruction requires thought. Focus perhaps, but it involves using the mind. Activity, like focusing on someone else's instruction is more of a distraction to someone who seeks to not use their mind. When you see the Buddha sitting, you can view it that he is meditating trying to not think upon anything, or meditating to make use of his mind.
     
  13. Ciel

    Ciel in essence

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is false, focus is not a function of mind, in fact - for instance in the case of professional athletes - it is often said that the player is not focused, he is thinking too much about what he will do next. There is also the concept of being in the zone, this is often said to include utter non-thought. I would actually state this is at least close to a meditative state in and of itself.

    This seems quite a common understanding, it is surprising you have not grasped it.
     
  15. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    61
    Indeed he did. He also went out into the wilderness to fast for forty days (and to be tempted by satan) before looking for disciples and starting his ministry.
    Cittavagga: The Mind

    excerpt
    Whatever an enemy might do to an enemy, or a foe to a foe, the ill-directed mind can do to you even worse.

    Whatever a mother, father or other kinsman might do for you, the well-directed mind can do for you even better.​
     
  17. Ciel

    Ciel in essence

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    0
    ........ Mooji is a man not of the mind yet the focus of the light and love flowing from his eyes relays warmth and radiance. It is true when the inner focus ventures through as I also experience through the stillness of mind ...it is love and lives in total acceptance.And there is total oneness while engaging others.

    - c -
     
  18. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes!

    Of course I would dispute whether it is truly oneness when there are two, but this is a function of mind - perhaps with more training it is possible to engage without interrupting oneness, it is just not my experience, I have not confirmed this.

    Irrelevant, still beautiful :)
     
  19. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Love this! Thank you for sharing!
     
  20. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you seek non-focus. Yes I can see that you prefer a programmed machine that reacts on instinct or programming, and does not take the time, does not take the responsibility, to think and question. Good athletes use their mind quite a bit, both off the field and on the field.
     

Share This Page