|
Post by laughter on Jan 18, 2015 5:48:07 GMT -5
As a correct inconsistency is an oxymoron logic has it that it's being used euphemistically in this instance. If you refer to my ' point', that was used humourously. But the Tao is all oxymoronic, if I may point out it's contradictions. It is the reasoning or feeling mind that transliterates Taoist paradox into linguistic oxymoron. To claim that one is revealing inconsistencies in the expressions of others without making them wrong is not a Taoist paradox, it's a self-deception.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 18, 2015 8:25:46 GMT -5
If you say "oneness is truth" you've set-up the true/false~right/wrong model.. Still your mind and let it go already. Take your own advice, and mine.. you keep cranking instructions to peeps for agreeing with your beliefs, let those beliefs go already.. what would you do if you weren't evangelizing, if you let go of ALL beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 18, 2015 9:16:44 GMT -5
There isn't a simple yes or no to that question. Some of the Bible is written from man's perspective, so some things are attributed to God which are not accurate. God is beyond man's possibility to comprehend. The Bible is written on at least four levels, from Origen and other writers, literal, topological (types, the OT is the NT concealed and the NT is the OT revealed), morally, allegorical. These he got from the Jewish mystical tradition which later came to be called The Kabbalah, these come from the word Pardes (from the story of four Rabbi's who went into Paradise, one died, one went insane, one became a heretic, and only Rabbi Akiva came back whole and unharmed). Peshat, plain, simple, direct; Remez, allegorical; Derash, metaphorical; Sod, the esoteric, hidden meaning. So God could be spoken of from any level, so a yes or no answer cannot be given. I take SOI to be God as Ayn Sof, Endlessness, transcendent, of whom it is said no man can see God and live, no man has seen God, only the begotten son..... Taking all that into consideration, yes, it's what Jesus points to by saying, my Father....... The word he used here is Abba (he was degrading God in the eyes of the Pharisees). It's the first sound a baby makes that could be taken as a word, like DaDa........ Ok Thanks, Are you believing that Jesus was crucified and resurrected on third day and whomever believes this go to heaven? Hey gopal, I believed that when I was nine years old. Now, I think it's a lot more complicated. I think that even if you merely look at the words of Jesus, they show it's a lot more complicated. I grew up in the Southern Baptist church. I think the Southern Baptist is full of born again babies, if that. I think probably that what we call being born again is merely spiritual conception. Look at the parable of the sower, the seeds fell on different types of soils. Some fell on shallow soil, and sprouted, but when the sun got hot, these withered. The sprouting is spiritual conception. But they withered, they didn't make it to the new birth. Jesus was all about transformation, not merely a mouth confession. The church deceives people today concerning how easy it is to become born again. This is for the most part unintentional, but that is no excuse. Jesus forgave sins, but invariably said, go and sin no more. I gave you earlier two passages of scripture concerning what the spiritual journey is about, moving from our old man to the new man, Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians 3: 9,10. Jesus knew this was going to happen, that what he taught would get distorted, thus, I can think of three parables concerning precisely this. There is the story of the man without a wedding garment, he was at the wedding feast, thought he belonged there, IOW, thought he was born again. But he was cast out because he didn't have a wedding garment. And there is the story of the three stewards. One was given ten talents (for the others, a certain amount of money), one five and the last, one. The first two invested wisely and were rewarded. The last buried his one talent, merely to preserve it. This one talent was taken away and given to the other two. Look up the story and see what happened to this guy. Jesus said, cast the guy the worthless guy into outer darkness. And then there is the story of the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins. They were all awaiting the arrival of the Second Coming of Jesus. And then the word came, he is coming. But the five foolish virgins had no oil in their lamps. They went out to buy oil and the Bridegroom came, and they were shut out, and Jesus said: I do not know you. This is also shown by Jesus who said, Not everyone who cries Lord, Lord, will enter heaven, but those who do the will of my Father. Romans 2:13-16 and Matthew 25:31-46 show there will be people in heaven who have never even heard the name Jesus. So your question cannot be given a simple yes or no answer. I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is the closest to what the Bible teaches. If you ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian if the are saved, they will answer, I am being saved. They know it's a bit more complicated......... That's the short incomplete answer. Read the red, everything Jesus said applies to us. That's a start........ There is a lot of stuff the church doesn't have right, a lot of stuff Christian theologians don't have right.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 10:55:02 GMT -5
Still your mind and let it go already. Take your own advice, and mine.. you keep cranking instructions to peeps for agreeing with your beliefs, let those beliefs go already.. what would you do if you weren't evangelizing, if you let go of ALL beliefs? Oneness is truth. Nothing is true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 12:40:09 GMT -5
Ok Thanks, Are you believing that Jesus was crucified and resurrected on third day and whomever believes this go to heaven? Hey gopal, I believed that when I was nine years old. Now, I think it's a lot more complicated. I think that even if you merely look at the words of Jesus, they show it's a lot more complicated. I grew up in the Southern Baptist church. I think the Southern Baptist is full of born again babies, if that. I think probably that what we call being born again is merely spiritual conception. Look at the parable of the sower, the seeds fell on different types of soils. Some fell on shallow soil, and sprouted, but when the sun got hot, these withered. The sprouting is spiritual conception. But they withered, they didn't make it to the new birth. Jesus was all about transformation, not merely a mouth confession. The church deceives people today concerning how easy it is to become born again. This is for the most part unintentional, but that is no excuse. Jesus forgave sins, but invariably said, go and sin no more. I gave you earlier two passages of scripture concerning what the spiritual journey is about, moving from our old man to the new man, Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians 3: 9,10. Jesus knew this was going to happen, that what he taught would get distorted, thus, I can think of three parables concerning precisely this. There is the story of the man without a wedding garment, he was at the wedding feast, thought he belonged there, IOW, thought he was born again. But he was cast out because he didn't have a wedding garment. And there is the story of the three stewards. One was given ten talents (for the others, a certain amount of money), one five and the last, one. The first two invested wisely and were rewarded. The last buried his one talent, merely to preserve it. This one talent was taken away and given to the other two. Look up the story and see what happened to this guy. Jesus said, cast the guy the worthless guy into outer darkness. And then there is the story of the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins. They were all awaiting the arrival of the Second Coming of Jesus. And then the word came, he is coming. But the five foolish virgins had no oil in their lamps. They went out to buy oil and the Bridegroom came, and they were shut out, and Jesus said: I do not know you. This is also shown by Jesus who said, Not everyone who cries Lord, Lord, will enter heaven, but those who do the will of my Father. Romans 2:13-16 and Matthew 25:31-46 show there will be people in heaven who have never even heard the name Jesus. So your question cannot be given a simple yes or no answer. I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is the closest to what the Bible teaches. If you ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian if the are saved, they will answer, I am being saved. They know it's a bit more complicated......... That's the short incomplete answer. Read the red, everything Jesus said applies to us. That's a start........ There is a lot of stuff the church doesn't have right, a lot of stuff Christian theologians don't have right. If so, you are not even a Christian since you deny the core message of Bible.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 18, 2015 13:03:34 GMT -5
Hey gopal, I believed that when I was nine years old. Now, I think it's a lot more complicated. I think that even if you merely look at the words of Jesus, they show it's a lot more complicated. I grew up in the Southern Baptist church. I think the Southern Baptist is full of born again babies, if that. I think probably that what we call being born again is merely spiritual conception. Look at the parable of the sower, the seeds fell on different types of soils. Some fell on shallow soil, and sprouted, but when the sun got hot, these withered. The sprouting is spiritual conception. But they withered, they didn't make it to the new birth. Jesus was all about transformation, not merely a mouth confession. The church deceives people today concerning how easy it is to become born again. This is for the most part unintentional, but that is no excuse. Jesus forgave sins, but invariably said, go and sin no more. I gave you earlier two passages of scripture concerning what the spiritual journey is about, moving from our old man to the new man, Ephesians 4:22-24 and Colossians 3: 9,10. Jesus knew this was going to happen, that what he taught would get distorted, thus, I can think of three parables concerning precisely this. There is the story of the man without a wedding garment, he was at the wedding feast, thought he belonged there, IOW, thought he was born again. But he was cast out because he didn't have a wedding garment. And there is the story of the three stewards. One was given ten talents (for the others, a certain amount of money), one five and the last, one. The first two invested wisely and were rewarded. The last buried his one talent, merely to preserve it. This one talent was taken away and given to the other two. Look up the story and see what happened to this guy. Jesus said, cast the guy the worthless guy into outer darkness. And then there is the story of the five wise virgins and the five foolish virgins. They were all awaiting the arrival of the Second Coming of Jesus. And then the word came, he is coming. But the five foolish virgins had no oil in their lamps. They went out to buy oil and the Bridegroom came, and they were shut out, and Jesus said: I do not know you. This is also shown by Jesus who said, Not everyone who cries Lord, Lord, will enter heaven, but those who do the will of my Father. Romans 2:13-16 and Matthew 25:31-46 show there will be people in heaven who have never even heard the name Jesus. So your question cannot be given a simple yes or no answer. I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is the closest to what the Bible teaches. If you ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian if the are saved, they will answer, I am being saved. They know it's a bit more complicated......... That's the short incomplete answer. Read the red, everything Jesus said applies to us. That's a start........ There is a lot of stuff the church doesn't have right, a lot of stuff Christian theologians don't have right. If so, you are not even a Christian since you deny the core message of Bible. I believe in precisely who Jesus was and what his mission was. I have spent the last 45 years of my life trying to understand exactly that. There are many, many people who will not enter heaven because they have merely believed and said certain words concerning your question. Merely believing that statement is in fact an immunization against coming to real truth. ...........First you have to row a little boat. If we accept one wrong thing in the Bible, we then have a distorted view of the whole, we begin to look at the whole through a distorted truth. This causes even further error, and then errors pile up, and then eventually the church kills people because they don't believe the "truth" (the Inquisition). How can someone ever come to the truth if you kill them? If you want simple answers, don't come to me.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 16, 2015 23:23:43 GMT -5
If you refer to my ' point', that was used humourously. But the Tao is all oxymoronic, if I may point out it's contradictions. It is the reasoning or feeling mind that transliterates Taoist paradox into linguistic oxymoron. To claim that one is revealing inconsistencies in the expressions of others without making them wrong is not a Taoist paradox, it's a self-deception. Indeed, oxymoron. In the 'no sense' of contradiction, there's something of a between bit, and I liken this metaphorically to looking out the window, where the closest anyone get to looking at the pane is to see rain running down it or the accumulation of dirt that has obscured its transparency, but who looks at the pane itself? In perfect transparency, one can't see the glass. This is what I allude to as 'the between bit'.
I don't really get the second bit... right and wrong is akin to correct and incorrect, but the main thing is, can you understand what it is the person means to convey? The judgemental mind that stands in righteous, has a non-dual paradigm for example, isn't really listening. Proper listening is only possible when empty and unknowing, which brings about more acute attention, and with the senses more alive like that, at least things are heard... 'brought to light' as the expression goes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2015 23:38:55 GMT -5
It is the reasoning or feeling mind that transliterates Taoist paradox into linguistic oxymoron. To claim that one is revealing inconsistencies in the expressions of others without making them wrong is not a Taoist paradox, it's a self-deception. Indeed, oxymoron. In the 'no sense' of contradiction, there's something of a between bit, and I liken this metaphorically to looking out the window, where the closest anyone get to looking at the pane is to see rain running down it or the accumulation of dirt that has obscured its transparency, but who looks at the pane itself? In perfect transparency, one can't see the glass. This is what I allude to as 'the between bit'.
I don't really get the second bit... right and wrong is akin to correct and incorrect, but the main thing is, can you understand what it is the person means to convey? The judgemental mind that stands in righteous, has a non-dual paradigm for example, isn't really listening. Proper listening is only possible when empty and unknowing, which brings about more acute attention, and with the senses more alive like that, at least things are heard... 'brought to light' as the expression goes.
There are limits to that not knowing though. The most extreme being the facility of language, but every conversation wends it's way of progression through a landscape of context, and if this isn't followed the dialog becomes impossible. The point of this dialog was that if someone identifies a supposed inconsistency and then claims that they're not making the person who they're claiming is inconsistent "wrong", then they resorted to a distinction without much of a difference.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 17, 2015 8:49:13 GMT -5
Indeed, oxymoron. In the 'no sense' of contradiction, there's something of a between bit, and I liken this metaphorically to looking out the window, where the closest anyone get to;looking at the pane is to see rain running down it or the accumulation of dirt that has obscured its transparency, but who looks at the pane itself? In perfect transparency, one can't see the glass. This is what I allude to as 'the between bit'.
I don't really get the second bit... right and wrong is akin to correct and incorrect, but the main thing is, can you understand what it is the person means to convey? The judgemental mind that stands in righteous, has a non-dual paradigm for example, isn't really listening. Proper listening is only possible when empty and unknowing, which brings about more acute attention, and with the senses more alive like that, at least things are heard... 'brought to light' as the expression goes.
There are limits to that not knowing though. The most extreme being the facility of language, but every conversation wends it's way of progression through a landscape of context, and if this isn't followed the dialog becomes impossible. The point of this dialog was that if someone identifies a supposed inconsistency and then claims that they're not making the person who they're claiming is inconsistent "wrong", then they resorted to a distinction without much of a difference. I was immediately reminded of a quote:
"one is never afraid of the unknown; one is afraid of the known coming to an end" ~ JK
I think what is inconsistent is fine, and contradictions are just matters to be reconciled, but incongruency is something that reeks of falsity, which is deception, so what we're concerned with in the truth as momentary knowledge, not known things, and the lies that are fundamental to the belief in known things. When I think about what can be known, it is that which already known, that I am here and this is it. Beyond that, there's ways of framing things, metaphors that supposedly mean something, pointers that seem to convince people of something.
The pointer is a thing that people don't know... it's a direct look into this moment alone. Not to ascertain if thought is thunk or if there's one or many, but only to inquire, am I aware? One can't possibly know if they are aware other than in this moment, for being aware is its own validation, and needs no other, there is no other, validation. If I point, I am there too, not idly referencing something that I know, such as 'what is mind', no body knows. They say mind is thought, so what is thought - I don't know. Who cares? The point is I am, and as I am aware, I can take that to the bank.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2015 11:00:25 GMT -5
There are limits to that not knowing though. The most extreme being the facility of language, but every conversation wends it's way of progression through a landscape of context, and if this isn't followed the dialog becomes impossible. The point of this dialog was that if someone identifies a supposed inconsistency and then claims that they're not making the person who they're claiming is inconsistent "wrong", then they resorted to a distinction without much of a difference. I was immediately reminded of a quote:
"one is never afraid of the unknown; one is afraid of the known coming to an end" ~ JK
I think what is inconsistent is fine, and contradictions are just matters to be reconciled, but incongruency is something that reeks of falsity, which is deception, so what we're concerned with in the truth as momentary knowledge, not known things, and the lies that are fundamental to the belief in known things. When I think about what can be known, it is that which already known, that I am here and this is it. Beyond that, there's ways of framing things, metaphors that supposedly mean something, pointers that seem to convince people of something.
The pointer is a thing that people don't know... it's a direct look into this moment alone. Not to ascertain if thought is thunk or if there's one or many, but only to inquire, am I aware? One can't possibly know if they are aware other than in this moment, for being aware is its own validation, and needs no other, there is no other, validation. If I point, I am there too, not idly referencing something that I know, such as 'what is mind', no body knows. They say mind is thought, so what is thought - I don't know. Who cares? The point is I am, and as I am aware, I can take that to the bank.
Yes, I find this well said with the on exception that if someone has been convinced of something by a pointer then they haven't followed the pointing. The answer to "who cares?" is: the body/mind with the interest and the questions. In this way, every existential question is seen to be self-inquiry in disguise.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 18, 2015 2:41:32 GMT -5
I was immediately reminded of a quote:
"one is never afraid of the unknown; one is afraid of the known coming to an end" ~ JK
I think what is inconsistent is fine, and contradictions are just matters to be reconciled, but incongruency is something that reeks of falsity, which is deception, so what we're concerned with in the truth as momentary knowledge, not known things, and the lies that are fundamental to the belief in known things. When I think about what can be known, it is that which already known, that I am here and this is it. Beyond that, there's ways of framing things, metaphors that supposedly mean something, pointers that seem to convince people of something.
The pointer is a thing that people don't know... it's a direct look into this moment alone. Not to ascertain if thought is thunk or if there's one or many, but only to inquire, am I aware? One can't possibly know if they are aware other than in this moment, for being aware is its own validation, and needs no other, there is no other, validation. If I point, I am there too, not idly referencing something that I know, such as 'what is mind', no body knows. They say mind is thought, so what is thought - I don't know. Who cares? The point is I am, and as I am aware, I can take that to the bank.
Yes, I find this well said with the on exception that if someone has been convinced of something by a pointer then they haven't followed the pointing. The answer to "who cares?" is: the body/mind with the interest and the questions. :D In this way, every existential question is seen to be self-inquiry in disguise. Of course... I was struck by 'the truth is a pathess land', and subsequently, I watch videos of JK on you tube, and if you observe him closely you'll see that he sorta closes his eyes while making his 'point', which suggests to me that he isn't drawing upon any past knowledge, but speaking directly from his immediate experience in that very moment. The application of the pointer then, is not to be convinced of what the ol' 'murt is saying, but to remain introspective upon it for immediate validation, and not then to remember it as 'something I know'. In so saying, the truth is not something that lays in the past or exists in the future of this chronological journey called life... it IS in every step.
Yes, your second point sounds 'right'. teehee.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2015 11:28:53 GMT -5
Yes, I find this well said with the on exception that if someone has been convinced of something by a pointer then they haven't followed the pointing. The answer to "who cares?" is: the body/mind with the interest and the questions. In this way, every existential question is seen to be self-inquiry in disguise. Of course... I was struck by 'the truth is a pathess land', and subsequently, I watch videos of JK on you tube, and if you observe him closely you'll see that he sorta closes his eyes while making his 'point', which suggests to me that he isn't drawing upon any past knowledge, but speaking directly from his immediate experience in that very moment. The application of the pointer then, is not to be convinced of what the ol' 'murt is saying, but to remain introspective upon it for immediate validation, and not then to remember it as 'something I know'. In so saying, the truth is not something that lays in the past or exists in the future of this chronological journey called life... it IS in every step.
Yes, your second point sounds 'right'. teehee.
yeah, tough to get 'round that sometimes. It's a real "self-surprise" when, for the first few times, a clear, un-self-conscious voice speaks directly without reflection or reference to a set of beliefs, and I mean "speak" in literal terms in person. Paradoxically enough, that voice seems filled with conviction. JK is someone who I've only heard of 2nd hand (like here), but sounds like an interesting character for sure.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 19, 2015 5:37:50 GMT -5
Of course... I was struck by 'the truth is a pathess land', and subsequently, I watch videos of JK on you tube, and if you observe him closely you'll see that he sorta closes his eyes while making his 'point', which suggests to me that he isn't drawing upon any past knowledge, but speaking directly from his immediate experience in that very moment. The application of the pointer then, is not to be convinced of what the ol' 'murt is saying, but to remain introspective upon it for immediate validation, and not then to remember it as 'something I know'. In so saying, the truth is not something that lays in the past or exists in the future of this chronological journey called life... it IS in every step.
Yes, your second point sounds 'right'. teehee.
(rofl) yeah, tough to get 'round that sometimes. It's a real "self-surprise" when, for the first few times, a clear, un-self-conscious voice speaks directly without reflection or reference to a set of beliefs, and I mean "speak" in literal terms in person. Paradoxically enough, that voice seems filled with conviction. :D JK is someone who I've only heard of 2nd hand (like here), but sounds like an interesting character for sure. He's da bomb.
If you look into it, start with reading his speech 'The truth is a pathless land'... that where he really became JK and everything follows from there.
There's a heap of you tube clips and a lot, tons, of his work is free online.
www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-speech.php
Read it and weep.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 19, 2015 12:04:47 GMT -5
yeah, tough to get 'round that sometimes. It's a real "self-surprise" when, for the first few times, a clear, un-self-conscious voice speaks directly without reflection or reference to a set of beliefs, and I mean "speak" in literal terms in person. Paradoxically enough, that voice seems filled with conviction. JK is someone who I've only heard of 2nd hand (like here), but sounds like an interesting character for sure. He's da bomb.
If you look into it, start with reading his speech 'The truth is a pathless land'... that where he really became JK and everything follows from there.
There's a heap of you tube clips and a lot, tons, of his work is free online.
www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-speech.php
Read it and weep.
Seems like he discerned dependence on the part of some in the group that had put him at the head of it. Still though, this idea of "setting man free from his cage" .. .. an ideal, no matter how noble, is still an ideal. Funny synch, just less than an hour ago Sue and I were talking and what came up was "the world doesn't need any new religions". Even a synthesis would just be another central organizing principle. It's the same tension, the same paradox that one finds no matter which way they approach nonduality with the mind. It's true that every human being is unique. No one path like any other. It's just as true that there is valuable, profound and beautiful culture to be found throughout human history that can, has been, and will be integral to many a path. Some elements of the old cultures will morph and survive over time. New cults will inevitably emerge. Some of these will likely get quite popular. Some people will find inner peace in their lifetimes. Others won't. Those that do will be of all stripes and flavors in the rainbow. Some charismatic, some self-sacrificing, some blunt, others poetic. All human, all flawed, and each success and every failure, perfect, just as they were, are and could ever be.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 19, 2015 12:17:24 GMT -5
He's da bomb.
If you look into it, start with reading his speech 'The truth is a pathless land'... that where he really became JK and everything follows from there.
There's a heap of you tube clips and a lot, tons, of his work is free online.
www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-speech.php
Read it and weep.
Seems like he discerned dependence on the part of some in the group that had put him at the head of it. Still though, this idea of "setting man free from his cage" .. ::) .. an ideal, no matter how noble, is still an ideal. Funny synch, just less than an hour ago Sue and I were talking and what came up was "the world doesn't need any new religions". Even a synthesis would just be another central organizing principle. It's the same tension, the same paradox that one finds no matter which way they approach nonduality with the mind. It's true that every human being is unique. No one path like any other. It's just as true that there is valuable, profound and beautiful culture to be found throughout human history that can, has been, and will be integral to many a path. Some elements of the old cultures will morph and survive over time. New cults will inevitably emerge. Some of these will likely get quite popular. Some people will find inner peace in their lifetimes. Others won't. Those that do will be of all stripes and flavors in the rainbow. Some charismatic, some self-sacrificing, some blunt, others poetic. All human, all flawed, and each success and every failure, perfect, just as they were, are and could ever be. Beautifully said.
|
|