Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Thomas, Jan 20, 2013.
This looks honest to me. I figure there must have been a bit of God in Bach.
So is your stance in favor of Christianity.
You believe in the Bible, you will accept whatsoever is in favor of it.
Do you think God is Christian? Even if every word in the Bible is absolute truth, it is the word of God, the beliefs of men are irrelevant. My only motivation is to help you see these are all mere thoughts of men, and not one is original to you.
You only show you have no experience of the divine, you lack the authority it entails, yet, without this, what are all your beliefs really worth? No amount of knowledge or belief can save you, how do you even know it is correct? If you are intelligent at all you will doubt it all. If you are intelligent at all you will see fear for what it is, another thought.
In confronting this, you will be on the road to true wisdom - something no book can offer.
It is only that I do not care for speculation.
What I say is not a personal position, my words are for you.
Here, you are perfectly correct, and I have said as much already. Knowing the disgusting history of Catholicism, I have never studied it. In fact I avoided all religion for most of my life because of how sickening I find Catholic history. Thankfully, I have been blessed for some reason with direct divine union, indeed your Bible says why when it states the he who knocks, for him the door will be opened. I am grateful for that, but now what use is study? What the scriptures point to, I have been guided towards independent of them. I will never forgive Catholics for the disgusting things they have done, and have no reason to since they continue to drag humanity backwards. Thankfully I don't have to.
I refer you to you own statement about stubbornness.
Krishna may or may not have been Bhagvan, but the man appeared on this earth, how then can he be Godhead? I can allow that he knew his divine nature, but he was a manifest being, he was an appearance in consciousness. In whose consciousness did he ultimately appear?
The Hindus call it Brahman, the void, Sunyata.
The true Godhead will never have stories detailing his life, for all of life appears in it.
Further, avatar means 'to descend', it still references other.
There is no other for a realized being, liberation - moksha - entails realizing you ARE That.
Ascension and descension are another duality, you still haven't comprehended nonduality.
Brahman, Sunyata, they are the culmination of nondual seeing, they are attempts to describe the ultimate state, to say what is found in Samadhi. Samadhi is exactly the state in which there is no other, for experience depends experiencer and experienced. Life as we know it depends duality, yet life itself is always one, for it there is no duality.
Hang on, where is this going? Let's backtrack. You made a frankly silly statement about Christian metaphysics, I called you on it, and now you seem to be leading me up a garden path somewhere ... have I got it right?
I believe that Christ is God. Is that the same thing, d'you think?
I mean, think about it ... If you think that, then why should I bother listening to you?
This is one of those statements that sounds really deep and meaningful, but really doesn't stand up to investigation when delivered out of context.
The skill is in discernment, between those who like the sound of their own voice, and those who can impart wisdom, knowledge and real being.
I would give you references from my tradition to contextualise it the more, but I think I'd be wasting my time and yours.
No, I don't think it is ... I'm afraid I'm not so sure you see clearly, anyway.
For example, on the issue of 'originality', I'm not in the pursuit of novelty, I seek the Real. I might also add that your assumptions and inaccuracies with regard to Christianity are not only unoriginal, but have much in common with the saloon bar bigot, so I'd check them out, if I were you.
My experience of the divine is not a matter for the edification or entertainment of others ... and I'm not sure of your qualification on the matter either, from what I've seen and sensed so far.
... besides, this forum is full of those who are enlightened beyond the dreams of us mere mortals, the last thing we need is another illumined being turning up with the usual factual errors, facetious insults and flakey advice.
Really? Where did you read that? It's another generalisation.
Actually, I've picked up loads of wisdom with regard to managing my career, my home and my hobbies from books ... and not a few pearls with regard to my Tradition, one in particular from a Tibetan Buddhist! So don't knock 'em!
On the other hand, if only you knew how to read Scripture! (And by that I mean the sacra doctrina of the Great Spiritual Traditions.)
You, like many, have made the fundamental error of assuming Scripture is literature, like other literature.
One thing even I can discern: You seem to have missed the single most important point stressed by every Great Spiritual Tradition, to wit, you seem to be carrying a great deal of poison in your system in the thoughts you hold on to about the things you don't like.
You need to make space in your heart for something else. Call it love, call it compassion, call it charity, call it forgiveness ... call it what you will.
There's a Buddhist tale about two monks who find a woman at a river crossing. Google it, you might actually learn something for real.
Yes, apologies, looks like there were some personal attacks I wasn't able to remove after the reason ruckus.
If you take the man, Jesus, to be God I cannot help you.
If you take Christ to be a particular principle of divinity, manifest in Jesus, then I would not dispute.
You shouldn't, you should look where I'm pointing and discover it for yourself. The Kingdom is within you, it has never been in a book.
How can you discern truth when you haven't encountered it? You are accepting blindly, then basing everything upon what you consider truth. It is already a forgone conclusion for you, but I ask you to look at your tradition as Jesus himself said to do, by its fruits. How many enlightened Christians do you know? Look without bias into Catholic history and see what fruits it has offered. Jesus said a good branch cannot produce bad fruit, yet right now the Catholic church is hiding child molestation. Something has gone awry, but it seems Christians are unwilling to look at Christianity with the most basic of discernments offered in their book
Do you think these assertions prove yourself a greater Christian? Do you feel this attitude shows me there is any benefit to your traditions teachings? I would add however that bigotry was essentially invented by Christians. From the early views on non-Christians to the many Western empires declaring those they encountered were barbarians. We can continue forward to Apartheid and the Civil Rights stuff in the US, racism was invented by Christians. You have a long history of counting others as below you, using the Bible to justify hate. It still goes on, it is required of every White Supremacist they be Christian. Awesome fruits, from the same branch.
Do you think Enlightenment depends on facts, on knowledge?
Do you think religions purpose is to assist in the mundane? I like how you throw in Tibetan Buddhism though, do you think what I'm saying about the futility of knowledge doesn't also apply to them? Every tradition is only a preparation for total let go, the problem is so many cling to them. The very teaching about seeing through egoic identification has resulted in providing another identification, ironic.
You are mistaken, however what scripture can compare to truth? None can say it, it is painful seeing how hard they try at times. A tear is coming to my eye because I know I can never say it either, I want so much to just show everyone, but it is impossible. They have to approach the divine themselves, but they only go further away.
You make the mistake of thinking that because these things matter to you, my discussing them means they matter to me. You are mistaken, you matter to me, I want to at least cause you to question your beliefs because truth is not there. You must return to a state of not knowing, again as Jesus says, you must be as a child, utterly innocent. Somewhere else he says you must be as a suckling baby, that total trust must be there. Belief is not trust, trust is from the heart, it has no provisions. Belief is just mental, it is only an accepting of information.
I am love.
I know it well, the one monk felt very guilty because monks are not to have contact with women. The other monk calmly stated that he left the woman at the river, asking why the first is still carrying her.
I wonder if you see how this tale relates to what I'm saying to you?
Did you edit my post or something? I do not recall making any personal attacks on anyone? I am confused.
No editing made, but please do note that a primary presumption of Interfaith is that everyone will have very different belief systems. If everyone were to therefore criticise the other, what would we have other than noise?
Instead, we must accept that we are not here to change the mind of those we speak to directly - but instead, share our own insight, so that others may understand something better of it, perhaps even explore it, and somewhere, learn something from it. There are many people who may read a discussion without joining in.
Remember, there is a fundamental truth of spirituality that the fool who is a fool demonstrates wisdom, but the fool who thinks himself a wise man demonstrates folly. We all have our paths to walk. Better to respect the different paths we all walk, even if we see the profundity of our own path. After all, you know they are all heading in the same direction, even if some would think otherwise.
I see what you're saying, but what I say is for a particular reason. I want to call all back to the very faculty of belief, I want to show through all the diversity that actually all point to the same thing. Belief is central to many peoples identification, but this is the problem. Even without religion, we can merely use psychology, where various aspects of ego are all unhealthy and id must become the place of functioning. Perhaps in this way, religion is simply outdated today, for psychology requires no belief system, thus doesn't create the possibility of sickness.
Jesus himself said he is come as a physician for the sick, that those who are whole do not need him, that he has nothing for the righteous - which for me means those who understand their nature rightly. It seems to me then that even the Bible is suggesting that clinging to Jesus is an admittance of a mental disorder. Others, such as Buddha, make this even more clear and actually prescribe for such delusion. The Upanishads all are only teaching how to come back to id which is moksha itself, seeing we are only the witness even of thoughts, what is belief other than another set of thoughts?
It is good if people are offended, it means they understand but the ego is protecting itself.
For me the only thing psychology really lacks is meditation.
True meditation is simply staying as the id though, being still and silent within and without, letting go of everything and dissolving our separate self into the whole, encountering the One.
Personification and anthropomorphisms of God are poisons, it is the objectification (for purposes of worship usually) of the very source of subjectivity - it is absurd.
Nope, it means your ego is projecting itself.
I want to bring egos into focus, the reaction we call taking offense is the easiest method toward this end, short of inducing fear itself but this is slightly harder on the internet.
Of course, this isn't an end, it is only an effective means.
The end I desire to induce is a seeing through the whole mechanism of ego, if offense has been taken it simply means they have instead gone into ego rather than watching it.
You want to say this is my ego projecting itself, no, it is the understanding of the ego mechanism which has been seen here. Of course, all that arises is a mirroring of something within us though. For me there is a very real need to bring all out of the ego process, for me everything wrong in the world stems entirely from egoic identifications, if enough people can hear this and understand it perhaps the world can be a much better place. Why do I choose a religious forum to convey it? It is because it is what all the religious founders have tried to teach.
You say interfaith discussion inherently involves lack of agreement, it is because you see no possibilities of commonality. For me, the source of all differences are only our misunderstanding of scripture. Interfaith dialog for me is about gradually seeing that there was never any division at all, that the very notion of separation that creates the different religions is entirely created by man, by mind, and doesn't exist in reality. We have so many religions because man clings to particular figures exclusive of others, he bases his truth on his preference.
My motivation is always towards the One, if that means I have to ruffle some feathers to dislodge people from what divides us, so be it. When we see difference as such is false, we can come together rather than fight to maintain separation.
Are there problems with my approach, certainly.
The largest risk is that in inflaming ego, it can strengthen their resolve.
Yet, in trying to agree and pointing through their tradition, the separation remains untouched.
All I know is that if man remains believing in his divisions, he will annihilate himself trying to uphold them. The strongest example of this is in Muslim extremists, do you thing they would stop short of nuclear weapon usage if they had the means? They believe strongly that dying for the cause assures them of heaven, if they destroy us all, in their mind, Islam wins.
This is an extreme, yet fundamentally it is still just a set of thoughts, and any thought which is given excessive attention can result in murder. No sets of thought are attached to like those that form our religions, and indeed history shows us how willing we are to kill and die for them.
They say that if we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it, but it seems we refuse where religion is concerned, such is the danger of believing they are divinely revealed.
God is love, hate is a function of ego arising out of fear.
Do I fear the ramifications of continued upholding of religious tradition? Yes.
Do I think the wisdom the founders have shared should be forgotten? No.
The environment today calls for us to go beyond our divisions though, our world is continually shrinking, it is increasingly easy for our visions to be world-embracing. We have to come together in every way, we must see we are all one.
What use are our advancements if we remain so primitive?
Well we can't really proceed until we've cleared up your ideas about the doctrine of the Logos.
Same principle. What you do, what you say ... is what you think.
But that was was written in a book, that's where you got it from.
How would you know?
I have and I do ... From your spew of bile earlier, you seem fixated on other fruits.
More than you can see.
I have done. I know our faults better than you, probably. But then I look to Christ.
I look at the history of humanity ... should I hate everyone I meet?
Love forgives. You evidently don't.
You come across like a pompous ass.
It tells me you are in thrall to the passions. You come across like the guru you want everyone to think you to be, but I get the distinct impression you are a poseur.
I have interspersed our dialogue with fragments from "The Paradise of the Desert Fathers" (a good book, by the way). They are all excerpts about sitting in judgement upon others.
Now I don't claim much, but I can discern the wisdom of what the fathers say, and the folly of the furrow you plough.
And I'd rather their company than yours, frankly.
The Logos is the principle which Christ points to, it is that which Jesus was anointed with.
Jesus is a distinct man, a particular Christ, but since he was born of Mary, it is not true to say he is THE Christ, unless we want to refer to the prophecies and say he is THE Christ they point to.
Jesus was anointed with the Logos, with God-consciousness (that mind which was in Jesus, in case you want to dispute this biblically) apparently at conception. Thus we can say God dwelled in the body of Jesus. Yet, as per Unitarian research, the body remained as man, God never became limited to Jesus' form. Indeed many statements show he saw a very distinct separation between his form and the Godliness I can accept dwelt in him.
True, except what I am speaking I have experienced. You say too much based on doctrine for me to accept you have experienced anything, spirituality is not something that can be advanced by knowledge, it something lived.
I know this statement is true, and so I use it when speaking to Christians. For me, God and Logos are ways of saying the experience of Oneness, the same as Zen and Advaita mean. Kingdom means under the authority of, thus Kingdom of God for me means the same as Tao, the unifying force or current guiding everything. To touch this and learn to flow with it are the objects of religion. It is not at all that I've read it and believe it, it is that it is how I live, and so accept the statement upon later review.
Your dependence on scripture shows you have experienced nothing. Your reliance on information, and refusal of statements directly referencing the experience proves it hasn't happened for you. You seem to lack a direct frame of reference, and accept blindly the words of scholars, even when it is irrelevant to direct understanding. Your whole approach is utterly founded in a relative understanding, despite my attempts to bring it towards the absolute. Again, this shows your experience to still be constrained to normal states of consciousness. It is quite plain that what scripture actually points to you are still ignorant of.
Then I am left to assume you simply do not know the first thing about virtue, you cannot look at what Catholicism has done and feel good about it, then say you have anything like ethics.
Then I have to ask what your definition of enlightenment is...
Enlightenment means the experience of union with the divine and ceasing of any sense you are separate from that. The only Christian I can name that seems to have experienced this in the 2000+ years of Christian history is Meister Eckhart.
For me, you cannot judge a gardener as good when only a single fruit ripens, you have to look at the rest of his field and say he is a bad gardener. I look at the followers of Ramana Maharishi, for instance, and Jesus cannot compare.
You should certainly not uphold anything which contributed to that past.
The Church, all nations, they are abstract notions, there is nothing tangible to love. I love the individuals who identify with them, and that is why I try to show the folly in it.
The story tells us to stop living from the mind, to come directly to the present. Religion is a veil keeping us separate from the reality, it paints over reality with our pre-conceived notions and thus we never actually encounter it.
You should probably reread that book, for this seems to be a judgment.
When I look at the Fathers, it looks to me they are fanatics, utterly intolerant. I see very little genuine wisdom in their statements, just idle speculation. They do not even seem interested in experiencing for yourself, it seems they are all content with 'blessed are those who haven't seen and still believe', and for me this statement alone is the second most dangerous statement in the Bible. The other, which I can never forgive Jesus for, is his saying that no one comes to the father except through him. Luckily there is no necessity to forgive Jesus, since the Bible itself says the only thing necessary is the Holy Spirit - holy comes from a word meaning whole, and spirit means breath, thus we can say it means Oneness of Life, and this is the central theme of all religion and everything I say.
That's not the way it is. There is not 'Jesus' and 'Christ'; there is only Jesus Christ. He is the Incarnate Logos. There is, according to ancient dogma, a distinction in nature, that is the Divine and the human, but there is only one Person, the Principle and Archetype of hypostatic union, that is union as such.
There cannot be 'a particular Christ'; there can be those who are Annointed by Him, but He is not annointed, He annoints.
You see a limitation. Traditional Christian doctrine does not, and explains so reasonably, rationally and logically. The Incarnation does not limit Our Lord. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity was not absent from the Trinity when He walked the earth as man.
And Traditional Christian doctrine affirms that as a dogma. But we don't place a limitation upon it as you do. The distinction is you see a particular instance of the act of hypostatic union, we see the Principle of Hypostatic Union realised in act.
And I have experienced what I speak of.
It seems to me you judge against yourself as the yardstick. I don't accept the benchmark you present me.
You assume they mean the same thing from your experience. Mine suggests they don't.
It is more than that, in my experience.
No, my reference to Scripture points to a less mediate order of participation. I would not assume to declare my words 'Scripture'.
Or perhaps I soimply refuse to brag about it, or use it as a means of demeaning another.
I see a limited virtue in your words. Forgiveness when Absolute is absolute, not provisional. As long as you hang on to your judgements you will not tatse true humility; as long as you rail about this and that you will not savour true detachment, the virtue, by the way, that Eckhart praised as the foundation upon which all virtue rests.
In your opinion.
You say "I am love" and yet you condemn.
That's not Love, in my book.
You can't see beyond yourself.
Jesus said before Abraham was, I am, it is evident he is not speaking of the form.
Jesus was anointed not less than 4 times. First, his conception, second, his baptism, third, the dove, and fourth by Mary with oil.
Exactly half of these are by the holy spirit, while half are by humans.
Jesus himself says he could not imagine being equal to God, apparently your Fathers have decided to imagine it for him. Yet, simply look at his sacrifice, do you think this doesn't highlight the limitations of form? The pain, the agony of believing himself forsaken, and the final dropping of the body with 'unto you, I commend my spirit'.
Now, you will say that the miracles show he had no limitation. Yet, Jesus himself says they are not done by him, but rather our faith. He also states that he does absolutely nothing, that it is the father acting through him.
If you see it as your action, your humility is false.
What Jesus shows is humility when he says all is his father acting through him, when he says it is our belief that makes things possible. Jesus has no ego, so there is nothing there desiring credit or to take blame.
Humility begins upon the death of ego, when all sense of separation ceases.
Separate names with a comma.