Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by IowaGuy, Sep 20, 2011.
If you are merely surviving, I do not say you are alive at all, you are just avoiding death.
Again, I didn't saying 'merely' survival, but rather survival is any species first and foremost mechanism as to its existence. Obviously, the species higher up the food chain sort of speak have many other mechanisms going on as well.
Reigning with Jesus Christ, Whose Kingdom is not of this world but comes into the world, the Kingdom is both in and above the universe.
Right . . . let's quote scripture
Among us Archangel Michael was silent, but at length he
said, In time past we have all known glory in both the
omnipotence that Is our God and the celestial brilliance that
is our Lucifer- for in him we thought embodied the Will of
God for creation and change.
But now it transpires that order and origin are at extremes apart,
and a choice is ill forced between the two.
Were it not for Lucifer we should all be as beasts,
knowing nothing of our Selves, yet how
indeed might we presume to order even our own thought
without reference to the elemental bases of God?
- Diabolicon:The Statement of Satan Archdæmon - verse 12
That isn't scripture, it's heresy.
lol... I just got done reading this, and to call it a scripture is laughable... it does however confirm EVERYTHING I've been saying about your pathetic beliefs.
LOL . . . oh our scripture is not as worthy as yours? Hence the problem with all religious minded (or in Lunitik's case 'mindless') sheeple.
Sure it is, it's ALL just literature, either it resonates with you or it doesn't, don't hate because you can, hate because you want to.
All scriptures are utterly crap, no exceptions.
Those who know see quite clearly these scriptures are at best notes of disciples, yet what you have quoted doesn't even attempt to say anything meaningful.
LOL, that is from Dr. Michael Aquino of the Temple of Set . . . just because you don't get anything from it, does not render it meaningless. The Ego . . . needs a check.
Besides, my point was exactly that, all scripture is bogus and none is any better or worse than any other.
Egolessness sees the absurdity of this text, yet it upholds your own ego and this is why you enjoy it...
Consider for a moment that its entire basis is in opposition to another myth and you will see why it is absolutely insane. What points does it make which have any meaning at all separate from this myth? Please remember I actually did read it, so ensure your statements are genuine.
For me, they should have just distanced themselves entirely from Christianity, but they are simply in opposition, they just take the other side. I would ask what is the point of it? Ok, so now you're anti-God, cool, then what? What is the point of existing at all? Just to exist it seems like, it directly says there is no bliss in this path, no peace, for only God offers these. Then what is the point? You are not bringing life to its peak, your experience will simply be utterly limited... this is meaningful for you?
Grow up... you ARE God! That mind is the mind you have, yet you only have access to that which you give attention to currently. Enlightenment isn't about mindlessness, it is about an expanded mind, dropping the limited state. As far as I can tell, your "scripture" prescribes staying as you are and stumbling across the power of divine will, enlightenment allows you to actually understand it instead of just tipping the first domino and hoping for the best as your scripture says is the case.
I can only say the writer of your scripture is plainly insane.
All scripture is an attempt to convey they unconveyable, and as such is utterly impotent. That said, many still points the way at least in a useful way, your scripture is childs play by comparison...
Yes, I go on saying to kill the mind, to silence the mind, this sort of thing... it is the negative statement, the work which must be done - the personal mind with all its beliefs and ideas has to go - yet it is only to bring you in touch with a higher consciousness...
Buddhism makes this distinction merely by using lower and upper case in English translations - Mind vs mind. Hinduism says the same when discussing maya and instructing you to mind atman, understanding the Self is not distinct from Brahman. Christianity even says the same when it instructs you to take on the mind which was in Jesus - this is the whole nature of the Holy Spirit, it is the universal consciousness.
Instead, I say the ego must be dropped, a state of pure awareness must be found - certainly things will arise still, thoughts will come, but it is no more a constant noise, you can decipher what is meaningful and just chatter. The mind is perhaps the most energy draining process in the body, and much energy is needed to enter the unified state.
It was written from an antinomian stance, as a direct insult to the Abrahamic vision. No one in the Temple of Set believe this is true, did take place, or is the text of some guru.
You seem to know a bit about Vedic religion, I'm sure you can understand this from a Vamachara/Aghora practice.
Again the point you seem blind to, is that I posted an equally useless jargon of text as the Abrahamic one.
Yet it upholds much of what you seem to believe in...
Again I say you have erred in the very choosing and identifying with belief, your ego has become threatened due to my attack on this identification.
The only way to truth is to find out the very nature of life, you are alive, what is it which sustains you in this moment? The way is in, deep into your own being you will find God, you will know you yourself are God. Being anti-God just says you are anti-your own true nature. Yet, I agree with the complaint, for seeing God accept himself as a sheep is utterly disgusting...
Such is the delusion of ego that in either direction it will allow itself to be sustained.
Ego is the Lower Self.
Manas is the term used in Dhammapada 1:1-2.
Citta is described as "luminous," as it is true will/volition
Vinnana is generally considered more sensory/associated with the physical
it does? Wow, you are as off the mark as one can get.
there is nothing threatening about you or what you say, I am quite confident in my Path and Beliefs. Unlike you, I don't need to proselytize in order to confirm my beliefs.
Id is the Lower Self . . . can you get ONE thing correct please?
Using Buddhist terms you have to then explain the term... I'd rather just say it as accurately as possible in English, mostly because then I'm not as likely to be labelled as a Buddhist.
Manas is thinking - this should be utilized but should not function of its own accord, it is simply unskillful and wastes energy. When necessary, use it to call information stored in the brain, otherwise it needn't function.
Citta is emotion - this can also be utilized in meaningful ways, far too many identify with the arisings and react foolishly out of them, however. We should not become victims to the emotions, although they create variety in the experience and thus are perfectly good.
Vinnana is consciousness - This is the fundamental statement of "I am", it is your pure identity, it is the constant "you". We can say it is the space manas and citta arise in, yet it is not yet the highest state... it is still attached to things, it still functions in existence.
Deeper still is to find out that which is aware of "I am", who is claiming it? Consciousness will say "ahh, this is the I" but still this arises, it is merely consciousness again. Enlightenment occurs when this pure awareness finds out the nature of itself, when it turns back on itself - yet this is Samadhi, there is absolute nothingness there, it is non-experiencable because there is no experience and no experiencer, there is simply emptiness, it is like you have simply blacked out, yet what is imparted is awesome.
No Buddha has functioned in this state, it is simply impossible, but it is what they have all ultimately pointed to. After finding this, it is never forgotten, yet it is as death, it is simply to enter oblivion - a Buddha simply can leave at will, for he has entered of his own accord and so he can leave.
Vinnana is ultimately who you are, yet Buddha has described you as an illusion. In discourse, he still responds to things addressed to the you which is present in him, yet ultimately he understands this is false - this is the difference between a Buddha and a normal person.
Much of our disagreements are on the nature of this, I say you have to die, that training is not necessary at all if you can simply drop your "I" this moment, if you can simply come into tune with existence right now. Ultimately all practice is pointless, it is all just to realize its own stupidity so you can finally let go.
In truth, you are already that which all the Buddhas have pointed to, all the scriptures are merely telling you to recognize it... this comes in a flash, it is always instantaneous - even if you have been practicing for 60 years, still it happens in a fraction of a millisecond.
Here - your link talks about a particular Citta, this person is explaining it for you...
To call it Luminous is strange, although there is a similarity with a satori, but it is more like Samadhi as I previously stated - it might even be the Buddhist term for Samadhi, idk
It seems prolonged Bhavanga-citta could be referencing the no-mind state, pure awareness, and certainly this is luminous. This is the problem with trying to use certain terminology when it hasn't been necessary to have the experience...
Separate names with a comma.