Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heaven?

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

Few ever experience that Divine Love, yet they will still say they love.

If you do not know what love is, how can you feel it? If you have no love, how can you offer it? It will be something fraudulent, utterly false. Most simply mistake infatuation or lust for love, but here there is a possessiveness, it is something gross.

Love is a deep union, not an objectification.

 

[seattlegal]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

Must you cling to utilize?

You yourself have already condemned me for it, and when asked if you were certain of it, you said yes. Are you asking yourself this question again, and wish to reconsider your "certain" judgement?

But it is not just me you have condemned/separated, you have repeatedly condemned/separated yourself from "most" or "all" or "a very few" of humanity.

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

You yourself have already condemned me for it, and when asked if you were certain of it, you said yes. Are you asking yourself this question again, and wish to reconsider your "certain" judgement?

But it is not just me you have condemned/separated, you have repeatedly condemned/separated yourself from "most" or "all" or "a very few" of humanity.

I condemn your over utilization as presented to me, your insistence on splitting hairs is utterly of ego. Your need to correct rather than seek clarification shows you are still a slave to ego. You quick judgments also show you are not transcended. Finally, your very perception of being condemned or that I am seeking some sort of separation is also of ego - everything I have said is related to the impossibility of separation in reality, all is ultimately one.

Buddha is a great teacher, but when I discuss something of after awakening, you reference something that leads to it - I am discussing the effect, and you go on pointing to the cause. You constantly state that what I say is wrong, and thus you show that you have not gone beyond. Why then would I need to re-evaluate my statement? That said, it is utterly irrelevant because one day it will be everyones experience - whether you believe this is the only life and it happens after death, or whether you think there is another life, it is certain. What Buddha says is often more helpful because it is a hand-holding, speaking of how things are after the happening is less helpful without the devices I continuously offer. Our methods are utterly different, Buddha is a tour guide, he walks you through each stage. I attempt to peak curiosity and provide a method to act on it. Buddha's tour is long, you will have to take in much information and it will be arduous, I know that it can happen this very second - and it is so for Buddha as well, in a single night after a simple device it happened - so I provide a cliff notes so you can take the leap. They are two doors, one is the way of yoga and the other is the way of tantra. It is strange that the utmost tantrika has become the figure head for one of the most arduous yoga's, but it is fine.

 

[luecy7]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

I have not said you will not use mind and body, but will you be identified with the car? With the computer?

I am known by my actions. Are you known by yours?

They are interesting choices because body is the car, and mind is the computer... they are instruments, but what are you? If you can recognize you are not these things, using them is perfectly good and your usage will be benefited because less energy is lost - it will become far more efficient.

One of us has said that a person should use their mind, and to take responsibility for it.

Beauty and disgust are concepts and thus non-existential, yet they convey something so I have utilized them.

In reality, something that is disgusting is simply absent of beauty, they are not separated at all - just different levels of aesthetics. You cannot eliminate disgust without adding beauty, they are related completely. Your statement is simply absurd, you have not even considered it yourself it seems.

The similar opposites exist in many forms: good / evil, love / hate, honesty / dishonesty, etc... It is interesting that you now favor and say you work towards something you call beauty, and to help eliminate something you call disgusting. You go off on a duality tangent if someone uses the words good / evil, but I see that you use the words beauty / disgust in the same manner.

The problem is that we are utterly identified with these things, we have utterly forgotten what we actually are. Religion is the process of discovering again our true being.

Perhaps you are, but according to your words you don't really know anyone else. You don't see beauty in trusting someone to get to know them. You naturally had a dream of having a planet all to yourself. As you claim to have discovered who you are, it is a major entrenched fabrication of yours that others are you, or just like you.

 

[luecy7]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

I have never spoken against working towards good and away from evil. I have said it is absurd to fight with evil, because it simply doesn't exist. Evil is the absence of good, how can you be against it? You can permit good in, but you cannot remove evil.

So when you meditate to convince your evil mind / ego to stop, according to your view you are not really removing it, you are just convincing it to stop, or to drop. It is still there and very much a part of you so that when the lights are turned on again... there you are.

Yet, again, these are both merely concepts. They describe actions of love and the lack thereof. What I attempt to show people here is that they simply ARE love, as I said earlier in this thread. If you can allow that light to shine on all aspects of your life, where will there be the opportunity for evil? If this can be achieved at large, love will shine the world over.

Your 'hatred is love', 'war is peace' belief has apparently taken a break.

Yet love too is a concept right now, the devices I present can show you what love truly is - as can many others, of course.

When a person puts concept into practice, then it will become something more.

Do you regard fabrications, or dishonesty, as a device that is beautiful, or as something disgusting?

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

I am known by my actions. Are you known by yours?

Actions are utterly irrelevant, only intent is meaningful. Further, being "known by" something is simply of ego, what does it matter what others think of you?

One of us has said that a person should use their mind, and to take responsibility for it.

The other has said mind should be used in response to a particular need, that it is only a utility which you can use, not something to be identified with. If this becomes your situation, there is no possibility of needing to take responsibility for it.

The similar opposites exist in many forms: good / evil, love / hate, honesty / dishonesty, etc... It is interesting that you now favor and say you work towards something you call beauty, and to help eliminate something you call disgusting. You go off on a duality tangent if someone uses the words good / evil, but I see that you use the words beauty / disgust in the same manner.

Nothing has changed, I simply have discussed devices and truth. Devices dictate that the opposites be transcended, the result is bringing light into all of your life. There is no work to be done though, you do not work to rid a space of darkness you just bring light in. There is nothing to do with the darkness, simply create a light - and that is what I am trying to accomplish.

Everything I have said is about creating that light, continuously I am discussing how to be so utterly filled with light that it is impossible for anything around you to remain dark. Currently, it is not your situation, you have only a certain limit on love to give before it becomes a strain. You may even become reluctant to give of yourself in certain situations because you may be hurt. What I am saying can create an abundance, it is the ability to give continuously without caring who receives, and yet it is a male energy path so perhaps it cannot assist you. For the female energy, they give themselves totally through love and eventually they are no more. I cannot speak on this, for a male it is about going in utterly the opposite direction, then they flower in love.

Perhaps you are, but according to your words you don't really know anyone else. You don't see beauty in trusting someone to get to know them. You naturally had a dream of having a planet all to yourself. As you claim to have discovered who you are, it is a major entrenched fabrication of yours that others are you, or just like you.

How have you gathered that I do not know anyone? How have you gathered that I do not trust anyone? Where have you gathered that I dream of being on the planet alone? You are correct though, all are interconnected deeply, all are one in essence.

What you have not understood is: Is it not a natural curiosity that you wish to know your entire body? Will it even occur to you to not trust your own hand? Who will I share my love with if I am here alone?

No, the result is an almost naivety, as you have seen in my giving a number to a random person on a forum. I feel a deep need to reach out to all I encounter, to improve their lives in the time they are in mine. I see all people I encounter as a gift, yet I do not cling to any. You can possess objects, but to possess a person is utterly disgusting.

It is curious, of all the people on this site, I have talked to you the most, yet you have misunderstood me more than anyone else. You make such sweeping statements without even going into my words, yet continuously I attempt to clarify. This is a show of love, yet you receive something utterly different. I would like to investigate that filter, but whenever I prod you just point at the Golden Rule. I am really at a loss, and yet I persist with you...

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

Actions are utterly irrelevant, only intent is meaningful. Further, being "known by" something is simply of ego, what does it matter what others think of you?

As an example, a guy that gives a girl a drink at a bar. Giving is always good right? His intent is to take her home though, to use her.

If a woman asks a man whether she looks fat in an outfit, he lies and tells her "no". Lying is always bad right? He has lied, but his intent is to not offend her.

Actions are superficial, it is what is behind the action which is relevant...

 

[luecy7]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

As an example, a guy that gives a girl a drink at a bar. Giving is always good right? His intent is to take her home though, to use her.

If a woman asks a man whether she looks fat in an outfit, he lies and tells her "no". Lying is always bad right? He has lied, but his intent is to not offend her.

Actions are superficial, it is what is behind the action which is relevant...

The actions are superficial if a person makes their actions superficial, and those actions will eventually reveal the person to be superficial.

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

The actions are superficial if a person makes their actions superficial, and those actions will eventually reveal the person to be superficial.

Actions can never be anything but superficial, because they are always about the surface. This is my whole point, the intent is something deeper... that is WHY it is more meaningful. This is why even in the Bible it goes on saying not to judge by a mans actions, because you cannot know what is his motive, intent, situation, reason. Only God can know the intent, it says, so only God can judge rightly.

You are very superficial based on our discussions, you only look at the surface of my words and never deeply into them. Am I to write you off as simply a superficial person? I know your potential, so it is not possible for me to do that.

 

[seattlegal]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

I condemn your over utilization as presented to me, your insistence on splitting hairs is utterly of ego. Your need to correct rather than seek clarification shows you are still a slave to ego. You quick judgments also show you are not transcended. Finally, your very perception of being condemned or that I am seeking some sort of separation is also of ego -

I just love irony!

everything I have said is related to the impossibility of separation in reality, all is ultimately one.

Methinks you are demonstrating the possibility of separation from reality quite well.

Buddha is a great teacher,

Then why do you misrepresent his teachings?

but when I discuss something of after awakening, you reference something that leads to it - I am discussing the effect, and you go on pointing to the cause. You constantly state that what I say is wrong, and thus you show that you have not gone beyond.

No I provide examples of Buddha's teachings straight from the suttas to compare to your misrepresentation of Buddha's teachings.

Why then would I need to re-evaluate my statement?

Well, if one gives false witness about another, it could be out of ignorance. When provided with reliable information, one should give the person making false testimony a chance to reconsider their statements in light of new evidence.

That said, it is utterly irrelevant because one day it will be everyones experience - whether you believe this is the only life and it happens after death, or whether you think there is another life, it is certain. What Buddha says is often more helpful because it is a hand-holding, speaking of how things are after the happening is less helpful without the devices I continuously offer.

Alrighty.

Our methods are utterly different, Buddha is a tour guide, he walks you through each stage. I attempt to peak curiosity and provide a method to act on it. Buddha's tour is long, you will have to take in much information and it will be arduous, I know that it can happen this very second - and it is so for Buddha as well, in a single night after a simple device it happened - so I provide a cliff notes so you can take the leap.

Follow up care is very important, imo.

They are two doors, one is the way of yoga and the other is the way of tantra. It is strange that the utmost tantrika has become the figure head for one of the most arduous yoga's, but it is fine.

Then you are aware that close supervision is recommended with the Tantra method?

 

[seattlegal]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

Actions can never be anything but superficial, because they are always about the surface. This is my whole point, the intent is something deeper... that is WHY it is more meaningful. This is why even in the Bible it goes on saying not to judge by a mans actions,

Mmmm, in Matthew 7, Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them."

because you cannot know what is his motive, intent, situation, reason. Only God can know the intent, it says, so only God can judge rightly.

Indeed, yet you have freely broadbrushed people throughout this thread and other threads?

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

I just love irony!

There is no irony at all, it is an observation from 5 months of correspondence with you.

Methinks you are demonstrating the possibility of separation from reality quite well.

Statements like this sort of crystallize it...

Then why do you misrepresent his teachings?

I do no such thing, you simply do not see the correlation.

No I provide examples of Buddha's teachings straight from the suttas to compare to your misrepresentation of Buddha's teachings.

You provide examples you think are relevant, I speak from personal experience. Which is more valid? When I speak, it is as if Buddha is talking to you, when you provide a sutra it is at the very least a memorizing of a single monk of 45 years of lessons which they have recited after his death. At worst, it is random rubbish that has accumulated in a monastery. No matter, it has passed through translation when you quote and thus cannot be accurate.

As a good example, you stated Buddha has taught the cessation of suffering... dukkha does not mean suffering.

Follow up care is very important, imo.

What do you think this will serve?

Then you are aware that close supervision is recommended with the Tantra method?

Where have you seen any such thing?

 

[luecy7]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

Actions are utterly irrelevant, only intent is meaningful. Further, being "known by" something is simply of ego, what does it matter what others think of you?

I am known by my actions. You have been vocal on the importance of what others think, or don't think, and do, or don't do, for quite some time.

The other has said mind should be used in response to a particular need, that it is only a utility which you can use, not something to be identified with. If this becomes your situation, there is no possibility of needing to take responsibility for it.

That would be a selfish way to use your mind, especially as you self determine what is needed.

Nothing has changed, I simply have discussed devices and truth. Devices dictate that the opposites be transcended, the result is bringing light into all of your life. There is no work to be done though, you do not work to rid a space of darkness you just bring light in. There is nothing to do with the darkness, simply create a light - and that is what I am trying to accomplish.

It does look like you fabricate your own light.

Everything I have said is about creating that light, continuously I am discussing how to be so utterly filled with light that it is impossible for anything around you to remain dark. Currently, it is not your situation, you have only a certain limit on love to give before it becomes a strain. You may even become reluctant to give of yourself in certain situations because you may be hurt. What I am saying can create an abundance, it is the ability to give continuously without caring who receives, and yet it is a male energy path so perhaps it cannot assist you. For the female energy, they give themselves totally through love and eventually they are no more. I cannot speak on this, for a male it is about going in utterly the opposite direction, then they flower in love.

Easy to say when you think: taking is giving.

How have you gathered that I do not know anyone? How have you gathered that I do not trust anyone? Where have you gathered that I dream of being on the planet alone? You are correct though, all are interconnected deeply, all are one in essence.

You have said that you loath trusting without knowing. Early on, you had said that you had a dream of having a planet all to yourself.

What you have not understood is: Is it not a natural curiosity that you wish to know your entire body? Will it even occur to you to not trust your own hand? Who will I share my love with if I am here alone?

No, I do not have to know my entire body, because it is not entirely mine. I drive a car, and I type on a computer, but I will not entirely know the car, nor the computer.

No, the result is an almost naivety, as you have seen in my giving a number to a random person on a forum. I feel a deep need to reach out to all I encounter, to improve their lives in the time they are in mine. I see all people I encounter as a gift, yet I do not cling to any. You can possess objects, but to possess a person is utterly disgusting.

My #'s are rather public. I am routinely called by strangers and asked to place faith in them, and vice versa.

t is curious, of all the people on this site, I have talked to you the most, yet you have misunderstood me more than anyone else. You make such sweeping statements without even going into my words, yet continuously I attempt to clarify. This is a show of love, yet you receive something utterly different. I would like to investigate that filter, but whenever I prod you just point at the Golden Rule. I am really at a loss, and yet I persist with you...

Your time has been matched by myself and others. You had formerly disowned all words, claiming that none were yours. Good to see that you are taking some ownership now.

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

Mmmm, in Matthew 7, Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them."

Fruits mean results here, it is the conclusion of the intent - you cannot know the intent, but once there are already fruits it is too late.

Indeed, yet you have freely broadbrushed people throughout this thread and other threads?

I have observed and pointed at things I have seen in those here, you can perceive that howsoever you like.

 

[Etu Malku]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

I am simply saying the definition is irrelevant, I am showing you how to experience it.

Will you need to agree upon the definition of a car to get in? There is no need because you know what "car" means, you simply enter.

You have this very nihilistic Osho idea about enlightenment, I never liked the purpose of purposelessness! But As I stated, this is your subjective viewpoint and how you you are enlightened, which is the whole point, what we believe ourselves to be (or not to be, ok?).

 

[luecy7]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

Actions can never be anything but superficial, because they are always about the surface. This is my whole point, the intent is something deeper... that is WHY it is more meaningful. This is why even in the Bible it goes on saying not to judge by a mans actions, because you cannot know what is his motive, intent, situation, reason. Only God can know the intent, it says, so only God can judge rightly.

As a person reveals their intent, they reveal their intent. I agree that at some level you have no choice but to trust another.

You are very superficial based on our discussions, you only look at the surface of my words and never deeply into them. Am I to write you off as simply a superficial person? I know your potential, so it is not possible for me to do that.

Thank you for your judgment. This is an internet forum where only words can be shared, so you are correct: you don't yet know me.

 

[seattlegal]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

There is no irony at all, it is an observation from 5 months of correspondence with you.



Statements like this sort of crystallize it...



I do no such thing, you simply do not see the correlation.

What you call correlations I would call delusions, imo.

You provide examples you think are relevant, I speak from personal experience.

Please tell me about your having spoken directly to Buddha, so that you can "accurately" relate his words?

Which is more valid? When I speak, it is as if Buddha is talking to you,

ROFLMAO!

when you provide a sutra it is at the very least a memorizing of a single monk of 45 years of lessons which they have recited after his death.

Yep. More of a chance than you have had of getting the teachings straight from Buddha's mouth.

At worst, it is random rubbish that has accumulated in a monastery. No matter, it has passed through translation when you quote and thus cannot be accurate.

And your "channelling" Buddha has to pass through your delusions. At least the translations have the opportunity to be checked by many different people who can catch any errors.

As a good example, you stated Buddha has taught the cessation of suffering... dukkha does not mean suffering.

Perhaps you could provide a better translation?

Snake Simile
37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.


Evaṃ vādiṃ kho maṃ bhikkhave evamakkhāyiṃ eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti: venayiko samaṇo gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññāpetīti. Yathā vāhaṃ1 bhikkhave na,2 yathā vāhaṃ na vadāmi, tathā maṃ te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti: venayiko samaṇo gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññāpetīti.

52. Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ.
MN I_utf8​

What do you think this will serve?

Oh, perhaps maybe to protect the individual from harm?

Where have you seen any such thing?

Do you disagree? Should we consult a tantric guru regarding this?

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

I am known by my actions. You have been vocal on the importance of what others think, or don't think, and do, or don't do, for quite some time.

I have said nothing of the sort

I work inwardly, not outwardly... I am concerned with you noticing what you are thinking, what actions you take, and whether they are voluntary or not - whether you are a master or a slave at this time.

That would be a selfish way to use your mind, especially as you self determine what is needed.

How is not wasting energy something selfish? Explain.

It does look like you fabricate your own light.

The light is not mine, but in a way you have described enlightenment.

Easy to say when you think: taking is giving.

When you take, you feel perhaps that you have gotten the better of someone, or maybe guilty. When you give, it is because you have already taken before, you give a small part to ensure you do not feel guilt.

No, both of these are not the way of love, they fundamentally about possession - they are material. There must be an environment of sharing, whosoever has will simply give to whosoever needs without caring about who that person is, and that person will simply receive joyfully. Neither can possess though, at most a thing can be used, it can provide a function.

You have said that you loath trusting without knowing. Early on, you had said that you had a dream of having a planet all to yourself.

I certainly have said nothing of this dream...

I have said blind trust is a disgusting thing, to accept something simply because it is said cannot accomplish a thing. Yet, you also cannot throw away whatsoever you feel is wrong because even you cannot be trusted.

When you encounter the Real, now there is a knowing, a deep love has happened and now you can do nothing but trust. You have utterly surrendered to Now, it has rewarded you, you have a support for future trust. Now, gradually, you are utterly naive. Whatsoever happens, it has needed to happen, there is no risk so where is the trust really? It is simply a deep complete totality of love for the whole.

No, I do not have to know my entire body, because it is not entirely mine. I drive a car, and I type on a computer, but I will not entirely know the car, nor the computer.

This is quite strange, I might ramble about repression but I will simply drop the device because I do not see a useful way it can be advanced.

My #'s are rather public. I am routinely called by strangers and asked to place faith in them, and vice versa.

So you are saying it doesn't show a trust?

Your time has been matched by myself and others. You had formerly disowned all words, claiming that none were yours. Good to see that you are taking some ownership now.

I do not own any of my words... what an absurd statement.

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

You have this very nihilistic Osho idea about enlightenment, I never liked the purpose of purposelessness! But As I stated, this is your subjective viewpoint and how you you are enlightened, which is the whole point, what we believe ourselves to be (or not to be, ok?).

How can you say Osho is nihilistic?

A purpose is an end to a curtain means. Whatsoever purpose we formulate, we have added ourselves because life is its own end and means. Life is to be lived, and lived joyously, never missing a single moment.

This is nihilism in your mind?

 

[Lunitik]

Re: Was JESUS the only heavenly being to incarnate into the human community from heav

Please tell me about your having spoken directly to Buddha, so that you can "accurately" relate his words?

I have experienced that which Buddha describes.

ROFLMAO!

You laugh, yet I am awakened as he was.

Yep. More of a chance than you have had of getting the teachings straight from Buddha's mouth.

What you have missed is that the monk still clings to his master, so he cannot be enlightened. Therefore, how can he know Buddha rightly?

And your "channelling" Buddha has to pass through your delusions. At least the translations have the opportunity to be checked by many different people who can catch any errors.

It is not a delusion, it is humorous though because you are about to quote a statement of people during Buddha's life making quite similar remarks. I have not said channeling, I have said direct contact with the same - call it Dharmakaya if you wish, dharma is truth, and kaya is body, it is perfectly right to say I have entered the truth body.

Perhaps you could provide a better translation?

And here it comes... for brevity I will snip it though.

Dukkha means discontent, things are not going the way we wish, we cannot control all we wish or have all we desire.

Nirvana is to be utterly content, because you want for nothing and are pleased with everything - all is already perfect, you simply didn't realize it. That realization of perfection we have already discussed, in recognizing it everywhere is Shangri-La. Yet it is not really an external place, it is an internal state.

Oh, perhaps maybe to protect the individual from harm?

My work is to pass you off to God, no harm will come of anyone who permits that.

Do you disagree? Should we consult a tantric guru regarding this?

Yes, I say it is not necessary, thank you for asking.