Garden of Eden

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Lunitik, Sep 12, 2011.

  1. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are part of a faith who's early history consisted of slashing the necks of women and children, I don't think you ought to be talking about being anti-human. You have rejected a Messiah who's whole message is "love your neighbor as yourself" but you're discussing whether someone is anti-human? Laughable.

    WHY is it controversial though? It is because the old faiths have repressed and created an environment where people are against sex. That is anti-human, it has created a war within everyone on this planet. I would suggest you stick to Judaism, because you have no willingness at all to understand others perspectives.

    Of course this appeases your mind, your mind wants a purpose and labeling the box will cater to its want for organization. What have you genuinely accomplished though? No matter what purpose you attach, there is still no genuine purpose, you have just fabricated nonsense.

    He did absolutely nothing, his people took care of everything.

    Thank you for stopping so quickly, and I am aware of each of these people, yet none of these people have provided so many people with freedom. Each of them is still stuck in the past, each are providing teachings which remains repressive and controlling.

    If that is how you wish to take it, you are welcome to that conclusion. Moses, for instance, prove he has talked to God or anything else he claims? Osho has claimed nothing but that he is enlightened, he has never placed himself above the people around him, saying he is simply a friend helping any seekers which trust him.

    What do you know about enlightenment? I see none in the Torah, that's for sure.

    You are disrespecting Buddhism again, thinking you are disrespecting me. Such an ignorant person, yet you keep trying to teach us about your faith, rather hypocritical if you ask me. Yet, the boat got me to the other shore already, feel free to use it for firewood - I have no more use for it at all.
     
  2. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no such thing as haphazard religiousness, every stream is the same if you can realize. Your search is haphazard because it is a pursuit of mind still, trust your heart more and you will see all the streams contain the same water.

    I am sure I no longer need the boat, yes.

    What qualities do you think are intrinsic to this state? You have gone on present something which I do not recall saying and that seems like a nonsense as something I have said. For the enlightened man, every moment they die and are resurrected, every act partaken in is utterly fresh and not rehearsed at all. Whatsoever arises is utterly authentic, some examples: Jesus has whipped animals and people in a temple, and Buddha has killed. It is only your own conclusions which demand certain behaviors as a result.

    Your own quote actually says this isn't the case, the koan about before and after enlightenment exactly states that nothing changes outwardly at all. It is impossible to provide outward signs of enlightenment because for one thing the very effort to prove it to another shows ego has not died. Enlightenment is an encounter with truth, a whole new person is born within, but the body still retains its former responsibilities and needs.
     
  3. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
    I agree with you that it doesn't take any effort to show the outward signs once they become intrinsic. Did you miss the part where I posted the outward signs?

    If you have the law written on your heart, you no longer need the raft, as it is now intrinsic within you. With your now transformed conscience as your guide, you effortlessly fulfill the law.
     
  4. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Self-control is irrelevant to enlightenment, faith is equally worthless in the first link. The Christian statements of the signs of the Spirit directly go against the Buddha's, for in Buddhism you come to accept the positive and the negative equally whereas the Christian remains focused on the positive.

    The law is written on my heart though, oneness is the law and the nature of every law is directly a result of that. This is the nature of love, of compassion, and of the joy. You will look with closed eyes and think something I do is going against that, but it is not so at all. Even when I am harsh it is out of compassion because I know the potential of a person, I know the slumber of the unawakened and wish all could ascend.

    Exactly, this is why I go on saying that use of devices to transcend duality is very important. Nothing else is necessary if you can experience truth, because now everything falls into place as a by-product. This is my own method of trying to wake others up, I am not interested in behaviors or individual actions, just awake and know truth yourself. That is the law, but it is no longer a law written in black and white, it is not intrinsic and so you can apply it to a particular situation.

    I will even say to go totally into you desires so you see they are not creating happiness, go totally into everything other faiths call evil until you get utterly sick of it. Then, when you see how pointless it all is, you will have a vast contrast to make your transcendence even deeper. This is not what most seekers or religious people will expect, but nothing is more harmful than creating habits out of "good" behavior.

    Without the experience of truth, even a good act is sinful - you will do it to get into heaven or something similar, it remains essentially selfish. What to say of a genuine sinful act? Well, Tilopa will say that you cannot be held responsible for anything done in sleep. Our own laws echo this, if you kill while sleep walking for example and can prove it to be the case, you cannot be punished according to US law.
     
  5. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah! Time for me to interrupt with some linguistics nerdiness...
    The letter qoph is a uvular, not a velar (the uvula is further back in the mouth than the velum, almost toward the tonsils). In English if we contrast the starting sounds of king vs. queen or keen vs. cool, we can hear that the sound usually written "q" or hard "c" is a little different from the sound usually written "k" although we don't care about the distinction: in English it is strictly a function of whether the next sound is "w", "oo", or "oh", pulling it back in the mouth, or "ee" or "ay" pulling it forward (the $10 word is that it is a "non-phonemic" distinction; that is, no two words are separated only by having a uvular in one and a velar in the other); but in Hebrew qoph could be followed by a front-vowel "ee" or "ay" and still be pronounced back at the uvula (hiqiyphuni "they made me recoil" in Psalms 22:17), or kaph followed by a back-vowel "oh" or "oo" but still pronounced at the velum (kosher is a simple example).

    The velar fricative khaph is the German ich sound, not much thicker than the "hy" in English huge if pronounced rather breathily; while cheth is the German ach sound, in uvular position and more "guttural" sounding (but linguists don't have a precise meaning for "guttural"; the Hebrew resh is also back at uvular position, more "guttural" sounding than English "r"). The kaph/khaph distinction is non-phonemic in Hebrew: that is, whether the letter is pronounced as a stop or a fricative is driven only by position, depending on whether a vowel-sound immediately precedes. But qoph/cheth is phonemic: it matters whether you use the uvular stop or the uvular fricative. The teth is an alveolar stop, articulated at the front of the roof of the mouth, rather than on the teeth-ridge as for the dental stop tav: "Teth with the tongue on the top of the mouth; tav with the tongue on the teeth!" Tav shifts to the dental fricative thav (as in English thick or thin; not the same as the voiced dental fricative in this or that, transliterated "dh" in writing Hebrew in Roman script because it arises from daleth making the stop-to-fricative shift), in the same way as kaph to khaph. The "palatal" point of articulation is in between the alveolar and the velar, and doesn't really exist in Hebrew except that the sibilant shin could be ascribed to that position: English affricates (stop + sibilant) "j" and "ch" are palatal, and Slavic languages like Russian do have stops at that position, the soft-d and soft-t (hard for us to say; sort of like "j" or "ch" except you don't "let it go" completely).

    Aleph is supposed to be a purely silent letter, just a "carrier" for a vowel that lacks a preceding consonant; the vowel is pronounced with the "soft onset", just gradually getting louder out of nothing without any sudden start. 'Ayin is supposed to be the "glottal" stop, a catch at the back of the throat: in slangy English uh-uh "No!" it is the minimal consonant that separates the two syllables. In Ashkenazic (East European) dialects, 'ayin falls completely silent; also, thav and dhaleth become "s" and "z" instead of dental fricatives; it is believed that the Sephardic (North African) and Mitzrahic (Middle Eastern) dialects are truer to the ancient pronunciations, because those Jews were surrounded by other Semitic languages instead of Indo-European languages and hence preserved Semitic pronunciation habits. But the 'ayin may even have been more "guttural" like the pharyngeal fricative (rasping against the walls of the throat) called ghayin in the Arabic alphabet (the most difficult sound in that language) as it sometimes got transliterated "g" in Greek translations ("Gomorrah" was actually 'Umorah).

    Carry on.
     
  6. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
    lmao Kalama Sutta

    Criteria of acceptance: absense of greed, hate, and delusion
    Criteria of rejection: presence of greed, hate, and delusion
    The four exalted dwellings: are the outward fruits, also known as the four immeasurables, the brahmaviharas: loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity
    The four solaces: these show that doctrine regarding afterlife doesn't really matter, as it all comes back to the here and now

    Be careful when speaking out of ignorance--conjecture based upon ignorance can lead to madness and vexation, and will often obscure truth.



    I realize that it might take some time for everything to fall into place and become stable. Transformation is not always easy.
    Are you familiar with the concept of the two truths?
    If you experience truth, yet do not make the adjustments to bring yourself into truth, is the truth really alive and active within you?

    Agreed. This is called the transforming of desire into the wisdom of discernment. (There is a bit of 'duality' there, is there not?)

    It would be like trying to polish a turd. :p
    One would have to admit that the consequences of sleepwalking persist even after you wake up and forgiveness has been granted. Hopefully the now awake person would take action to avoid the harmful consequences of sleepwalking.
     
  7. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't understand what you are getting at here... it is because they simply don't arise that these things are irrelevant now. Faith is worthless because it is a belief not based on truth, you now have known truth so it is no longer a faith, it is a knowing, a certainty.

    You show a wrong understanding, there is no adjustment necessary because the one that was not in truth has died, simple as that.

    No, but language forces it to resemble duality. In reality they are different qualities of the same thing... desire is something which you have decided you want for your future, discernment is a decision as well but it is no more selfish - you understand ramifications and are not projecting into the future.

    It is more like appreciating the diamond despite its existence as coal, it is a recognition of the difference in quality. The awakened ones are conscious even during sleep, so there is no possibility of sleepwalking any longer. You are not cognizant of the transformation, you are comparing a sleeping person to an awake person and saying they are the same. Compared to an enlightened person, you are asleep even reading this - hopefully the distance between a diamond and a lump of coal will show have distinct the two qualities are.

    Is it even worthwhile to say the coal still exists in the diamond? They do not resemble each other at all. Both still are found within rocks though, so their exterior is not so different.
     
  8. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that people look at religion as advice or philosophy, it is not so...

    Buddha is trying to cause a change of your very nature, it is alchemy - turning a base metal into gold, turning the lump of coal into a diamond filled with light. It has to be understood, else you will miss him utterly.

    It is not enough to simply accept what Buddha says, you must understand deeply, you must at least contemplate on his words at length, it is best if you allow it to go so deeply that mind is no longer even coherent. Now you are entering your very being, searching within yourself, now you are entering the space of transcendence. If you simply learn the words, nothing will happen at all, you are simply wasting your time if you try to understand Buddha through the mind.

    Buddha himself says the culmination is a state of no-mind, find that place, don't simply give mind more subjects to devour - this just keeps the minds fire burning.
     
  9. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    What, then, are the delusions Buddha warns again, well, Christ is a good example actually...

    In Enlightenment, it is very easy to think now you are God, you have merged with what is called God so it is a natural conclusion. You can manifest, it seems you are powerful as God is said to be. This is an easy trap to fall into, and the most popular faith on Earth followed such a delusional man. Now, if I started claiming these things, people will not accept at all but the experience is the same. The people around Jesus were very superstitious though, they have fed his enlightened ego. It is difficult to see that you are still only a part, a realized atom in a vast body - nothing more.

    I remind myself constantly "everyone has this seed, you have merely flowered", it avoids quiets ego when it attempts to assert itself. I still have the same emotions as all others, but they are not happening to me, they are happening to this body. I will have anger, hurt, love and joy the same, but I can celebrate each because I am detached from the impermanent. This is enlightenment, this is why it is still possible to kill, ambush a mosque, or lash out violently at disciples, each is through the love of knowing, the compassion for each seed that has not yet sprouted out of the mud and the want for it to become a beautiful lotus.
     
  10. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ahh, so enlightened people are like zombies wandering around with no will of their own? :p
    Certitude is worthless? Faith in the Christian sense is very much the same.
     
  11. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are about as far from zombies as possible, they are aware they never had any will of their own. They are aware what they are, aware of all things.

    Faith is not certitude, is it is belief in something without knowing it to be true.
     
  12. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
    But no self-control?



    Hey, the placebo effect works!
     
  13. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Buddha talks about no-self, what will be controlled? It simply has no meaning at all. No, control is a violence, it is something mind wants to have over everything it encounters. Utterly disgusting, it is exactly what Buddha saves from... it is strange you haven't understood this yet.

    Are you advocating for placebo religion? Not that it would be something new.
     
  14. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
    *sigh* You don't understand...
    Anatta is related to sunyata and dependent origination. There is no essense of self that can be found when examined.
    Dhammapada 12: Attavagga: The Self
    157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the night.
    158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.
    159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control.
    160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain.
    161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem.
    162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an enemy might wish.
    163. Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial.
    164. Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones — that fool, like the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction. [14]
    165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another.
    166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.


    Nope
     
  15. Lunitik

    Lunitik Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    See, Buddha here has said to control yourself, yet also that depriving yourself is extremely harmful. Certainly, you are to master the mind, but you do not even know you are not the mind yet. It is not about control, his whole method is about causing the mind to be silent without that sort of violence.

    For me, this is certainly something which has been lost in translation, Buddha will not have talked about control in the way the English language uses this word. Two of the most important concepts of Buddhism are no-mind and no-self, it is because both create the ego. If you do not want to accept this, feel free to ignore me, but this quote is wrong as it currently reads.
     
  16. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
    lol. I was editting my post to add information regarding anatta, sunyata and dependent origination while you were replying.
     
  17. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
  18. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
    Dude, see my earlier post about anatta and sunyata. Sensory information is not the self. Attachments are not the self. Beliefs are not the self. The heap of karma you carry around is not the self. Consciousness is not the self. If you apply neti neti to all these and any other component, you will not find an essense of self that you can point at say, "This is my self."

    You have written earlier about destroying ego. Have you turned back from that sort of self-violence?

    Mushin is more of a Zen thing than Buddhism thing--related to the concept of Taoist flow. Mushin must be balanced by mindfulness.
     
  19. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    yes, that would certainly explain how we ended up with the tradition of nimrod as the first dictator, enslavement by the egyptians, the somewhat combative depiction of the seven nations of canaan, the midianites and so on in the Tanakh, the destruction of the first Temple by the assyrians, the babylonian exile, military domination by the persians, the greeks, the romans and then 1800-odd years of christian persecution. it seems sometimes that we were not seen so much as a threat as an inconvenient reminder that humanity had a story to tell that was greater than an endless succession of war and conquest.

    oh, really, so you accept the entirety of the Tanakh as historical fact? i thought you had described these texts as fabricated. you can't have it both ways; either it's true or not.

    because a) we already knew that perfectly well and b) he wasn't the messiah according to any of the criteria we have for messiahship. why is the messiah of the jews so important to you if we are such a bunch of unenlightened child-murdering primitives? one is bound to wonder what exactly it is about us that makes people so obsessed with our sacred books, history and practices.

    you see, this comes back to your determination to ignore what is actually in the text, let alone the actual beliefs and practices of what you call the "old faiths". you are clearly quite unaware of what judaism says about sex, although given that you 'don't see any enlightenment in the Torah' i suppose that shouldn't be surprising. clearly, your level of understanding of Torah is comparable to your level of understanding of music, but don't let it bother you.

    what, as opposed to telling other people what their perspectives ought to be and how they're wrong about everything compared to your spectacular insight?

    you mean, as opposed to the superb organisation of your system of thought?

    i do love the way you blithely dismiss any other form of knowledge other than your own and then act all surprised that people aren't exactly impressed.

    how admirable.

    hur hur hur. surely you shouldn't congratulate me for going against the flow?

    so osho has freed more people than moses did in egypt, or christianity or islam did for their own adherents? as carl sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet the sum total of what you have provided so far is "because i say so and i 'know' it to be true". what a crock.

    judaism, alone of world religions to my knowledge, is the only one that rests on a *mass* Revelation as opposed to one special recipient; the traditional figure for the entire jewish people that stood at sinai was 600,000; this is generally taken to be a way of saying "everyone"; all of these people saw the "Voice of G!D" and responded, collectively that they would keep the Torah; this is the promise that we still keep, 3,000 years later. we kept the promise (not always terribly well) and, in return, G!D Has looked after us. no, we can't prove it, of course. but then again, you don't even have a century of history to back up your claims of "the most enlightened being the world has ever known". some might consider that, well, presumptuous.

    well, you don't know Torah very well, that's also for sure. i'm pretty sure enlightened people don't go around patronising people and displaying their ignorance like a showreel.

    firstly, i think it was you that started insulted the Torah regardless of your utter ignorance of it and, secondly, i think buddhism's rather beyond my ability to insult, even were it intended, given that buddha himself insists that we kill buddha if we run into him; a subtle and delightful piece of thinking.

    what exactly am i ignorant of? i've provided evidence for why i think what i do about osho (and i haven't even mentioned the ex-osho people that i actually know in real life), whereas you have provided nothing but "because i say so" and evidence of your ignorance of both Torah and music - which, oddly enough, you seem rather proud of.

    not really. there are more people in this conversation than you and i, who are rather more open to learning stuff they don't already know. all i have done is pointed out stuff that you have said that is both factually incorrect or philosophically ludicrous.

    that *is* why we keep you around here, bob. ;) i was hoping you'd chip in.

    i can see that in modern hebrew, they use the "french R", but sephardim use more of a spanish or in many cases arabic R;

    that's why gaza has a "g" as well, actually it's "'aza". there is a difference however between the guttural 'ayeen and the "open gimel", which is a softer, more palatal fricative similar to the french R.

    from the way it is described, it sounds remarkably similar to the progression through the seven heavenly "heikhalot" in what is known as "merqabah mysticism"; no enlightenment in the Torah though. deary deary me.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  20. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    1
    I understand the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but really, get off it already . . jews were not slaves in Egypt

    Egypt says Jewish slaves didn't build pyramids - CSMonitor.com

    No evidence that Jews or Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt - Democratic Underground

    Though various Judaic texts address slave ownership rules and practices

    Judaism and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     

Share This Page