In the Light of Truth (Abdrushin)

[Reefs]

Sept 7, 2022 3:30:26 GMT -5 laughter said:

Sept 6, 2022 11:38:28 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Interesting. Yes, the mere face value interpretations of these commandments are in stark contrast to what A is explaining and are too easily dismissed and ridiculed. But A points out a whole 'nother dimension that only few are aware of or even able to fathom. And to me that is not only fascinating but also resonates somehow. 

Off the Abdurshin topic but continuing this biblical theme ...

Eventually I wound up trying to read the bible from the beginning on my own, about ten years before I picked up Tolle. Reading the Old Testament just reinforced my misconceptions, and I concluded the Romans included it in the cannon as essentially a cautionary tale: "see? look at how rich a culture this is, they've kept track of all this history going back through the centuries. They were warriors, look what happened to them ".

It wasn't until after the shake up - long after - guys like ZD on these forums made nondual sense, especially of the New Testament, which I didn't even bother reading back then 'cause I'd gave up on it.

Then, going to their mass, going along with the program to support Sue, well, nonduality is clearly there, hiding in plain sight, in the communion: all are the body of Christ. Only one unique Jesus though. We lucked out in our priest. Obviously had kensho'd, and if you imagine what it's like doing what they do, performing the same ritual day after day, sometimes multiple times a day, it's either going to blow their minds or turn them into robots. Father Joe would stress, whenever he had the chance, the radical nature of what Jesus had to say: unconditional love, and of the incomprehensible and all-encompassing, all-knowing/seeing nature of God. I had about a half a dozen really improbable synchronicities happen over that time and I shared them with Joe in a few letters, and his reactions to them where always a joy.

There are two scraps of scripture that noone has had to relate to nonduality for me, as they are quite clear. One is "Render Unto Caesar". That one strikes me as similar to "the finger pointing is not the Moon", or "beginner's mind", in that it is very deep water that most people who do have at least some inkling of it seem to take for granted. It's also the precise answer to several of the ongoing mind-loops on the two forums.

I think Fomenko puts the NT before the OT in his new chronology and moves the events reported in the books to the Italian peninsula. So, you're not the first one with that idea.

Joseph Campbell once mentioned Buddhism hidden in the Gospel of Thomas. 

There's a Chinese story about a doctor who is sent to the battle fronts to treat wounded soldiers. And he's really got at what he does, but one day the reflecting mind kicks in and he has a meltdown. He wonders what the point of his skill is when those who he cures are sent right back into battle again and either die or come back again wounded. So he quits and seeks the help of a master. And after staying a while with the master and spending some time in contemplation, he has a realization: "I am a doctor! Doctors cure people. That's what I do!" And he went back to the battle front, treating the wounded, but this time fully content and at peace with his role.

[Reefs]

Sept 7, 2022 5:04:11 GMT -5 laughter said:

Sept 6, 2022 12:42:51 GMT -5 Reefs said:

The 10 Commandments

The Second Commandment

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!


1) The Texts:

2) Popular Interpretations:

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

A briefly goes into some examples of how rulers and the Catholic Church in the past violated this commandment. I'll leave that part out because I am focused here more on the individual and am also assuming that most are familiar with that history anyway. Later his criticism of organized religion turns from specific to more general:

So to sum it up again, according to A, this commandment is about sincerity, genuine religiousness, the kind of contact with the Devine that one feels in ones bones, not the kind for religiousness for show, mechanically performed rituals or prayers mumbled with a mind deeply lost in the consensus trance, just going thru the motions. Put into our forum-speak again, a direct and visceral understanding of THIS vs. an indirect, merely intellectual, hearsay-based understanding. In that sense, A is correct, one moment face to face with THIS would suffice to end all confusion forever, which will also leave one in awe of the Devine so that actually living this commandment will become something entirely natural, as opposed to something one has to be trained to do by threat of severe punishment.

To me Tolle nails this commandment with what he writes about how people suffer from various degrees of unconscious reactivity. These will express as "Jesus Fucking Christ!", even by non-Christians. Isn't that amusing that people who have no belief in Christ, or even God, will exclaim this sometimes? The primary Christian prayer includes "hallowed be thy name", which is a call for devotion and reverence. In the "JFC!" moment the individual is lost quite deeply in the dream trance of existential separation. The way I'd paraphrase Abdrushin's observation here is in that moment they are "shaking their fist at God". The cognitive dissonance of a devotee in that instant is an opportunity for them to snap right out of it.

And then Zen plays with this idea, and challenges the sensibilities with the story of the "birdshit Buddha", which is sort of the flip side of the Cigarette Man koan. Those strike me as deeper water for people with relatively quiet minds.

It's very much part of Western culture, whether you are a believer or not. 

I think it was Ramana (or some other Indian guru) who said that to the seeker, most of these religious texts that children are taught at a young age are meaningless to them, just words. And letting them learn them by heart may seem like a waste of time. However, once someone gets a glimpse of the ultimate truth, these texts will suddenly make sense and will prove very useful, as orientation on the pathless path. Because they provide a context for something that goes beyond any ordinary context.

[Reefs]

Sept 25, 2022 5:25:50 GMT -5 JustASimpleGuy said:

May 27, 2022 0:09:44 GMT -5 Reefs said:

This is pretty clear. The intellect, conceptual thinking, which happens in the context of time and space, will never be able to transcend time and space and therefore will never be able to understand the mysteries of the universe, time and space. This is a point Seth will pick up years later when he talks about the "dream-art scientists" or "mental physicists" and "complete physicians" who are not bound by the intellect, time and space, and so are able to gain a much deeper and more accurate peek into the nature of the universe than our current scientists that are mostly driven by the intellect and the outer (physical) senses and their extensions (scientific instruments) - and ego, maybe.

There’s actually a special chapter on what ‘becoming like children’ means, about 'childlikeness' (Volume I, Lecture 10). So we'll get to that later.

I find this interesting because I'm in IT and my style is very intuitive. From a technical perspective I am very solid however syntax is not encoded in memory and there are others far superior who can recite syntax to the nth degree. I leave that to manuals and documentation. I do have a knack with a non-linear approach, to some extent bypassing more traditional approaches to analysis, design, coding, testing and debugging. Skipping steps because oftentimes I just have a hunch which branches need to be pursued first without having to run through the various scenarios and their ramifications. Maybe it's just experience but it feels like it's something else. I always considered it part technical and part art. It just feels right.

To the more general point I don't consider science and spirituality at odds in and of themselves. We tend to make them so but it doesn't have to be. I would express being more childlike as maintaining some of the innocence, wonderment and curiosity from childhood, add in a good dose of humility and top it off with an acknowledgement or awareness of the Transcendent.

I'd say having mastered a skill in the end always has the potential to become some kind of art, play even.

[Reefs]

The 10 Commandments


The Fourth Commandment

Honor Father and Mother!


1) The texts:

(VULGATE)
Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam ut sis longevus super terram quam Dominus Deus tuus dabit tibi.
(Honor thy father and thy mother, that thou mayst be long-lived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.)

(GNV)
Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be prolonged upon the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

(KJV)
Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

(ERV)
You must honor and respect your father and your mother. Do this so that you will have a full life in the land that the Lord your God gives you.

2) Popular Interpretations:

(BfD)

"Honor your father and mother."
Honoring your parents means to respect and care for them (such as providing for them in old age). This commandment is the only one with an accompanying promise: “. . . that your days may be long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.” Although this promise would eventually be understood to refer to an individual’s life, in its original context, this promise guarantees the nation of Israel a long tenure in their Promised Land if they obey this commandment (and presumably the others, as well).

(CfD)
“Honor thy father and mother.”

This commandment obliges the faithful to show respect for their parents — as children and adults. Children must obey their parents, and adults must respect and see to the care of their parents when they become old and infirm.

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

He first addresses the popular understanding of this commandment...

Can a child honour its parents when it hears them roundly abusing each other, sees how they deceive each other and even come to blows?

A child witnesses scenes in wedded life that make obedience to the command a distressful problem if not altogether impossible. It would be hypocrisy if a child should assert that it honours its mother when it notices that its mother treats strangers more graciously than she treats its father, or if it sees her propensity to frivolity and how her vanity seduces her to be the slave of every silly freak of fashion, often quite incompatible with the beauty of motherhood, completely disrobing it of its dignity.

[...]

The word father or the word mother should at all times awaken a warm glow of feeling in the heart and should conjure up a pure image clothed with dignity, standing before the soul either warning or encouraging, a guiding star through life!

What a treasure, therefore, is a child robbed of which cannot honour its father and mother from its whole soul.

... which he calls a misinterpretation:

And yet this anguish the heart suffers is only the result of a wrong interpretation of the commandment.

The opinion hitherto held was wrong because it was limited and one-sided, whereas nothing God has sent can be limited or one-sided.

Man's fault was all the greater because the commandment was defaced with the intention of making it more explicit to man by interpolating a word:

“Thou shalt honour thy Father and thy Mother!”

This made it personal which necessarily led to error.

The right interpretation of this commandant, according to A, is this:

In its right form the commandment is “Thou shalt honour father and mother!” Not special individuals are meant, for their nature can neither be foreseen nor their development predetermined. Divine laws contain nothing so preposterous and in no case whatever does God require man to honour something unworthy of honour.

This commandment does not refer to persons but to an idea, a principle, viz. to the conception of fatherhood and to the conception of motherhood. It does not address itself to children but to the parents themselves, requiring them to honour fatherhood and motherhood.

The commandment lays special duties on the parents: they are at all times to be fully conscious of the loftiness of their task and mindful of the responsibilities it involves.

[...]

Do you not see how poor, incompetent and utterly inadequate is your reception of all that comes to you from the Light!

Whether it be a command or a promise, the Gospel of Christ or the problems of Creation. You see nothing, you recognise nothing. You make no effort to understand a thing really, you do not accept it as it is, but convulsively try to remodel every thing and to cut it down to the low standard to which you have accustomed yourselves for thousands of years.

Break with these traditions, you have the power to do so and can use it at any moment! Nor is any sacrifice necessary: a tug, a jerk, one act of volition and success is yours!

[...]

“Ye shall honour father and mother.” Let it be to you a holy command. Put fatherhood and motherhood in the seat of honour they deserve.

Who are those today who have knowledge of the great dignity that is theirs, of their power to ennoble mankind? Couples that unite here on earth should learn to understand this clearly, for then every marriage would be anchored in the spiritual sphere and every father, every mother would be honourable, i.e. worthy of honour in the sight of Divine law!

To children this command will be sanctified by their parents and become living through them. No matter what their individual characters may be. It will be impossible for such children to do otherwise than honour their parents from their hearts. The qualities of the parents will compel them.

So what A seems to be doing here is advocating some kind of impersonal love that reaches much higher and expresses itself in much nobler ways then mere personal love. It does remind me of Plato's ideas and Jung's archetypes that are non-physical but expressed in the physical more or less purely. In that sense, A seems to be aiming at fully grasping these ideas of motherhood and fatherhood and then embodying them as purely as possible so that in their individually manifested form they are fully recognizable and therefore worthy of honor.

[inavalan]

Nov 10, 2022 9:04:32 GMT -5 Reefs said:

The 10 Commandments


The Fourth Commandment

Honor Father and Mother!

...

So what A seems to be doing here is advocating some kind of impersonal love that reaches much higher and expresses itself in much nobler ways then mere personal love. It does remind me of Plato's ideas and Jung's archetypes that are non-physical but expressed in the physical more or less purely. In that sense, A seems to be aiming at fully grasping these ideas of motherhood and fatherhood and then embodying them as purely as possible so that in their individually manifested form they are fully recognizable and therefore worthy of honor.

Before the Latin was the Greek ... link

• Ephesians 6:2 ►
  
  2 Tima ton patera sou kai tēn mētera hētis estin entolē prōtē en epangelia
  2 Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα , ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ ,
  2 Honor the Father of you and - mother which is [the] commandment first with a promise
  

This is multi-layered symbolism that everybody interprets at their level, be it emotional, intellectual, intuitional, in the framework of their beliefs.

I interpret it as a reminder that our physical experience has a purpose ³, and to heed ¹ it. It also suggests to follow ¹ the guidance of whoever created this experience ².

¹ Honor
² Father of you and - mother
³ with a promise

=============
EDIT: Surely, even the original is also an interpretation by whoever put it in words for the first time.

[unseekingseeker]

“Honour Father and Mother”

From the view of energy at play within, Father is undifferentiated awareness, stillness, God, potential energy, space, the noumena and Mother is duality, movement, experience, kinetic energy, kundalini, phenomena.

Divine Mother leads us from darkness to light, from ignorance to wisdom, from sorrow to bliss. Or we may say, Mother takes us to Father.

The Father is self-existent living light, being what our innate being-ness is, albeit veiled for the moment.

As such, honouring Mother and Father then assumes an aspect of surrender entwined with recognition of the play underway.

[someNOTHING!]

Nov 10, 2022 15:05:29 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Nov 10, 2022 9:04:32 GMT -5 Reefs said:

The 10 Commandments


The Fourth Commandment

Honor Father and Mother!

So what A seems to be doing here is advocating some kind of impersonal love that reaches much higher and expresses itself in much nobler ways then mere personal love. It does remind me of Plato's ideas and Jung's archetypes that are non-physical but expressed in the physical more or less purely. In that sense, A seems to be aiming at fully grasping these ideas of motherhood and fatherhood and then embodying them as purely as possible so that in their individually manifested form they are fully recognizable and therefore worthy of honor.

Before the Latin was the Greek ... link

• Ephesians 6:2 ►
  
  2 Tima ton patera sou kai tēn mētera hētis estin entolē prōtē en epangelia
  2 Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα , ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ ,
  2 Honor the Father of you and - mother which is [the] commandment first with a promise
  

This is multi-layered symbolism that everybody interprets at their level, be it emotional, intellectual, intuitional, in the framework of their beliefs.

I interpret it as a reminder that our physical experience has a purpose ³, and to heed ¹ it. It also suggests to follow ¹ the guidance of whoever created this experience ².

¹ Honor
² Father of you and - mother
³ with a promise

=============
EDIT: Surely, even the original is also an interpretation by whoever put it in words for the first time.

I've come to interpret all such "Father/Mother" ideas as aligned with Nothing/Everything, Wisdom/Love(a la Niz's quote), God/Body, Purusha/Prakriti, 0/1, etc. It's apparent that EVERYTHING can only be SEEN as ONE from the Realization of NOTHING (or insert any of the mentioned dualismisms).

I assume Gopal will share his disdain for my interpretation. 😝

[Reefs]

Nov 11, 2022 12:56:26 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Nov 10, 2022 15:05:29 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Before the Latin was the Greek ... link

• Ephesians 6:2 ►
  
  2 Tima ton patera sou kai tēn mētera hētis estin entolē prōtē en epangelia
  2 Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα , ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ ,
  2 Honor the Father of you and - mother which is [the] commandment first with a promise
  

This is multi-layered symbolism that everybody interprets at their level, be it emotional, intellectual, intuitional, in the framework of their beliefs.

I interpret it as a reminder that our physical experience has a purpose ³, and to heed ¹ it. It also suggests to follow ¹ the guidance of whoever created this experience ².

¹ Honor
² Father of you and - mother
³ with a promise

=============
EDIT: Surely, even the original is also an interpretation by whoever put it in words for the first time.

I've come to interpret all such "Father/Mother" ideas as aligned with Nothing/Everything, Wisdom/Love(a la Niz's quote), God/Body, Purusha/Prakriti, 0/1, etc. It's apparent that EVERYTHING can only be SEEN as ONE from the Realization of NOTHING (or insert any of the mentioned dualismisms).

I assume Gopal will share his disdain for my interpretation. 😝

That's an interesting interpretation. Not sure if the original context of the commandments allows for that kind of interpretation. It's not like the Bible is the Western equivalent to the Daodejing, right? 

[someNOTHING!]

Nov 13, 2022 10:03:15 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Nov 11, 2022 12:56:26 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

I've come to interpret all such "Father/Mother" ideas as aligned with Nothing/Everything, Wisdom/Love(a la Niz's quote), God/Body, Purusha/Prakriti, 0/1, etc. It's apparent that EVERYTHING can only be SEEN as ONE from the Realization of NOTHING (or insert any of the mentioned dualismisms).

I assume Gopal will share his disdain for my interpretation. 😝

That's an interesting interpretation. Not sure if the original context of the commandments allows for that kind of interpretation. It's not like the Bible is the Western equivalent to the Daodejing, right? 

I think (don't know) many folks tend to underestimate the veritable melting pot-interplay of language/culture that took place along the Silk Road. I sense massive potentials for the core of many existent religio-philosophies to share a commonality that is realization. Just look at this message board as a microcosm, for example.

I mean, after all, it's not like realization is confined by the systems of thought that attempt to express it. It seems that it is the dressing up of said core in the fine threads of beliefs, dogmas, and commandments that has become the veil behind which to get a peep, if ya know what I mean.

[Reefs]

Nov 14, 2022 9:22:47 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Nov 13, 2022 10:03:15 GMT -5 Reefs said:

That's an interesting interpretation. Not sure if the original context of the commandments allows for that kind of interpretation. It's not like the Bible is the Western equivalent to the Daodejing, right? 

I think (don't know) many folks tend to underestimate the veritable melting pot-interplay of language/culture that took place along the Silk Road. I sense massive potentials for the core of many existent religio-philosophies to share a commonality that is realization. Just look at this message board as a microcosm, for example.

I mean, after all, it's not like realization is confined by the systems of thought that attempt to express it. It seems that it is the dressing up of said core in the fine threads of beliefs, dogmas, and commandments that has become the veil behind which to get a peep, if ya know what I mean.

Sure, there are a lot of commonalities. Identical themes, actually, that you can find in the myths of basically every culture, as Campbell discovered. It's essentially always the same core story that is being told and retold again and again, but adjusted to different times, different people and different cultures. So those who go by mere appearances (literalism) are likely going to miss the forest for the trees.

[someNOTHING!]

Nov 23, 2022 4:28:43 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Nov 14, 2022 9:22:47 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

I think (don't know) many folks tend to underestimate the veritable melting pot-interplay of language/culture that took place along the Silk Road. I sense massive potentials for the core of many existent religio-philosophies to share a commonality that is realization. Just look at this message board as a microcosm, for example.

I mean, after all, it's not like realization is confined by the systems of thought that attempt to express it. It seems that it is the dressing up of said core in the fine threads of beliefs, dogmas, and commandments that has become the veil behind which to get a peep, if ya know what I mean.

Sure, there are a lot of commonalities. Identical themes, actually, that you can find in the myths of basically every culture, as Campbell discovered. It's essentially always the same core story that is being told and retold again and again, but adjusted to different times, different people and different cultures. So those who go by mere appearances (literalism) are likely going to miss the forest for the trees.

Right, the best of such stories can help vivify the longing to partake of the quest, both of which are often/usually full of certain pitfalls and obstacles. Very interesting, imo, how all such setbacks are seen as having been perfectly so once one actually realizes what one had been searching 'for'.

[Reefs]

The 10 Commandments

The Fifth Commandment


Thou shalt not kill!



1) The texts:

(VUL)
Non occides.
(Thou shalt not kill.)

(GNV)
Thou shalt not kill.

(KJV)
Thou shalt not kill.

ERV)
You must not murder anyone.

2) Popular Interpretations:

(BfD)
"You shall not murder."
The sixth commandment is often misunderstood to prohibit killing of any kind. However, the Israelites had several crimes that were punishable by death, and they were allowed to kill during times of war. This commandment prohibits murder — that is, the intentional killing of another person without cause.

(CfD)
“Thou shalt not kill.”
The better translation from the Hebrew would be “Thou shalt not murder” — a subtle distinction but an important one to the Church. Killing an innocent person is considered murder. Killing an unjust aggressor to preserve your own life is still killing, but it isn’t considered murder or immoral.

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

You will beat your breast, o man, and congratulate yourself on being no murderer, for does not to kill mean to murder?

[...]

Have you, however, never thought that it also lies in your power to deprive of life? That means the same as to kill. You have introduced, by your manner of expression, by your language, a difference of meaning that does not exist, for it does not say: Thou shalt not kill physical earth-life. The words are few but all-embracing: “Thou shalt not kill!”

Let us examine a case in point. A father, prompted by worldly ambition, wishes his son to be a scholar, and insists on his studying, cost what it may.

But the son is gifted with some special talent which urges him to do other work, for which these compulsory studies are of no value whatever. Naturally he has no interest in their pursuit, nor can he summon the joyful energy requisite for the task. But the father exacts and the son obeys. To please his father, he works to the prejudice of his health. It is quite natural that he suffers physically by thus thwarting his inclinations and neglecting the gifts that have been given to him.

[...]

In such a case the father has gravely trespassed against the Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” Besides which, he has perhaps withheld from mankind something that might have been of the greatest use to them, something the boy should have done.

The father should have considered that, although his son may have a spiritual relationship to him or to his mother, before the Creator he is a separate individual whose duty it is to develop such talents as he received on coming into the world, for his own benefit. Perhaps he was destined to make an important discovery of special value for men, by which heavy Karma that he had incurred, was by God's mercy to be remitted. The trespass against God's intention will here lie heavily at the door of the parents who accounted their paltry mundane concerns of higher importance than the great decrees of fate, thus they abused of their parental authority and power.

It is the same thing when parents allow trivial and insignificant suggestions of expediency to be of paramount importance in their calculations regarding the marriage of their children. How often in such a case, the noblest, purest impulse of their child is checked without any consideration for its feelings, whereby its material welfare may be assured but to the hurt of its soul's happiness which is of greater and more decisive moment for the child than all earthly treasures.

Of course parents should not indulge every dream, wish or whim of their child. That would be contrary to their parental duty. But searching examination utterly unbiased by mundane considerations must be made before they give way to their child.

[...]

On the other hand, a child can also sorely disappoint and kill justified hopes in its parents. If, when the latter have come forward to make the way clear that the child has chosen, it neglects to develop its gifts to attain great things, the unresponsive child would here be destroying generous and noble sentiments in its parents and thus trespassing against this commandment.

Again, when a man disappoints real friendship and abuses confidence placed in him, he kills something in that other that was a living reality and in so doing trespasses against God's Word: “Thou shalt not kill!” Fate will require atonement from him later on.

You see that all God's commandments are man's best friends, faithfully protecting him from evil and from tribulation. Love them, therefore, and cherish them as treasures that it is a pleasure for you to guard!

Interesting interpretation. But where do you draw the line? That's going to be a challenge.

A's interpretations of the other commandments so far ring somewhat true, but this one just doesn't. He falsely assumes assertion, i.e. that others can create in our reality, not to mention separation. 

[Reefs]

The 10 Commandments


The Sixth Commandment



Thou shalt not commit adultery !



1) The texts:

(VULGATE)
Non moechaberis.
(Thou shalt not commit adultery)

(GNV)
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

(KJV)
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

(ERV)
You must not commit adultery.

2) Popular Interpretations:

(BfD)
"You shall not commit adultery."
In the Hebrew Bible, adultery consists of sexual relations between a married man and a married woman (married to other people, of course). Sexual relations between a married man and an unmarried woman isn’t technically adultery because polygamy is allowable in the Hebrew Bible.

(CfD)
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
The sixth and ninth commandments honor human sexuality. This commandment forbids the actual, physical act of having immoral sexual activity, specifically adultery, which is sex with someone else’s spouse or a spouse cheating on their partner. This commandment also includes fornication, which is sex between unmarried people, prostitution, pornography, homosexual activity, masturbation, group sex, rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia.

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

The fact that there is another commandment which says “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife” plainly shows how little the interpretation commonly given to this sixth commandment by mundane law, corresponds to its real and true meaning.

It says “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. The words should rightly be: “Thou shalt not destroy, undermine or vitiate conjugal peace.” Peace naturally includes harmony.

Peace and harmony are the conditions of a true marriage, but where they are missing there is nothing to destroy or disturb, in which case the commandment has no validity, for it refers to what God wills and does not apply to what man understands or prescribes.

As a matter of course, a true marriage is only possible where peace and harmony reign, where the one partner only lives for the other's sake, seeking to gladden his life, where disloyalty (often the result of dull and irksome tedium), is from the beginning, once and for all, out of the question.

Other evils that undermine and destroy happiness are the dangerous craving for distraction or pleasure and the craze of not being understood. Just these evils can never exist in a real marriage where one lives for the other. The longing for pleasure and the craze of not being understood are the attributes characteristic of pronounced selfishness, of those who seek to live for themselves alone, not for others.

Where two souls are united in true love, self-sacrifice will be reciprocal and it would be impossible for one party to be at a disadvantage, always presupposing that the cleft in their respective breeding and education is not too wide. It is the attraction of the homogeneous (the Cosmic Law) that makes this condition of true and complete happiness.

A union where peace and harmony are missing does not deserve to be called marriage, nor is it true marriage but only a mundane contract which has no value in the sight of God and consequently is not blessed in the same way as a true marriage may expect to be.

[...]

Taken in its widest sense, it is trespassing against this commandment when parents try to separate two who are attached to each other in true love. Parents often do this in cases where some accompanying circumstance does not agree with their worldly interests. And again woe unto the woman, woe unto the man, be they young or old, who sow discontent, in the minds of such a couple or make mischief between them either from motives of envy or merely in play without serious intent. Pure love between two human beings shall be holy to every one, shall inspire every man with reverence and respect but not envy! For this love stands under the protection of God's Will.

[...]

The great fault of these trespassers is that they give way to a feeling, at first but vague, to which they cling and nourish, till this artificial product of their imagination grows to be a great power tormenting and impelling them to sin.

If they would let themselves be guided by discretion and prudence from the very beginning, thousands of souls would not be lost, for where not prompted by selfish and mercenary calculations their proceeding is but foolish dallying unworthy of human beings. This again originates in the pernicious practices customary in modern families and more especially in modern society. Very often the latter is simply a marriage market no better than the slave markets of the East, veritable breeding places for adultery.

Have a care, parents, that you do not, for worldly reasons, undermine and vitiate the happiness of your children, and thus make yourselves guilty of trespassing against this commandment. Parents do this in innumerable cases and they will find it hard to atone for their wrong-doing. And you children be careful you do not undermine and destroy your parents' peace and happiness! Otherwise you will also be guilty of this sin.

[...]

You must never sow discord between two people! Drum that principle well into your minds that is may ever be a constant warning to your soul!

Also an interesting interpretation. It somewhat establishes a relation to the 5th commandment. Maybe we can see it as a live and let live attitude. He is right about peace and harmony as the foundation of a fulfilling relationship. What doesn't ring true though is his emphasis on self-sacrifice for the sake of another. It's the same bogus belief in assertion and separation again. 

If the goal is peace or harmony, then alignment with who-we-really-are should be sought first, only then we have anything to give to another. In that sense, a natural, healthy selfishness is paramount, to seek our own alignment first and then with that as a basis, we are able to establish a truly harmonious relationship with the other, because when we are feeling complete and at peace with ourselves, we don't need the other to fill some kind of perceived void in us that only alignment with who-we-really-are could ever fill. Nothing can replace that alignment.

So it seems A puts the cart before the horse here and he may actually contradict what he just said in his commentary on the 5th commandment. Selfishness is a tricky subject! 

[Reefs]

The 10 Commandments

The Seventh Commandment

Thou shalt not steal!



1) The texts:

(VULGATE)
Non furtum facies.
(Thou shalt not steal)

(GNV)
Thou shalt not steal.

(KJV)
Thou shalt not steal.

(ERV)
You must not steal anything.

2) Popular Interpretations:

(BfD)
"You shall not steal."
This one’s pretty easy, meaning the same thing then that it does today: Don’t steal.

(CfD)
"Thou shalt not steal."
The seventh and tenth commandments focus on respecting and honoring the possessions of others. This commandment forbids the act of taking someone else’s property. The Catholic Church believes that this commandment also denounces cheating people of their money or property, depriving workers of their just wage, or not giving employers a full day’s work for a full day’s pay. Embezzlement, fraud, tax evasion, and vandalism are all considered extensions of violations of the Seventh Commandment.

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

Have any of you who wish to keep this commandment, realized what are the possessions of the other and what it is that you must not take away from him?

A man possesses money, jewelry, clothing, perhaps also a house, a farm, and cattle. The commandment, however, does not say that only material things are meant, for there are treasures far more precious and of much greater value. A man's possessions include his good name and reputation, the authority he enjoys in the public, his thoughts and principles, his individuality as well as the confidence that is placed in him, if not by all, still by this man or by that man.

Having got so far in our enlightenment of this commandment, the proud assurance of having kept it will perchance be somewhat shaken.

Now I will ask you, have you never tried, even in perfect good faith to shake the confidence one man puts in another?
Even if you but express a warning to be careful you may undermine it altogether. If so you have robbed the man who enjoyed the confidence, you have stolen it from him or have tried to do so.

You are also robbing your neighbor if, knowing something of his private affairs, you have repeated what you know without his permission. Now you will perceive how deeply all those who make a business of trading in such information, as for example, inquiry offices, etc. are guilty of this trespass. All such activity is permanent disobedience to God's commandment and those engaged in it, weave meshes to a net which they drag after them through all the resulting consequences of their business till it becomes so immensely large that they nevermore can free themselves and which drags them to their doom. All such people are more heavily laden with guilt than the ordinary burglar or thief.

[Reefs]

The 10 Commandments

The Eigth Commandment

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!



1) The texts:

(VULGATE)
Non loqueris contra proximum tuum falsum testimonium.
(Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor)

(GNV)
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

(KJV)
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

(ERV)
You must not tell lies about other people.

2) Popular Interpretations:

BfD)
"You shall not bear false witness."
This commandment, though more generally referring to lying in any situation, more specifically refers to accusing a person falsely in a legal context. In biblical times, as today, lying while “on the stand” was a major problem. To combat false testimony, ancient Israel had this commandment (plus a requirement of two witnesses) to convict a person. Nevertheless, people are wrongly prosecuted and even killed at times in the Bible as a result of dishonest testimony.

(CfD)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The Eighth Commandment condemns lying. Because God is regarded as the author of all truth, the Church believes that humans are obligated to honor the truth. The most obvious way to fulfill this commandment is not to lie — intentionally deceive another by speaking a falsehood. So a good Catholic is who you want to buy a used car from.

3) Abdrushin’s Interpretation:

Should you assault your neighbor, beat him, wound him and perhaps also rob him, you know that you will be punished by mundane law for doing him injury, but you do not know that you have involved yourself in a whole network of reciprocal activity, the influences of which penetrate into the finest fibers of the soul. You do not heed these effects, for they even elude your intuitive perception.

Still the law of returns is absolutely unbiased and it meets out perfect justice. It has no relation to mundane punishment — it operates quite independently. There is no escape, no place where the human spirit could hide and be protected from it.

When you hear of a brutal assault and of violence done, you are indignant, if the sufferers happen to be related to you, you are shocked and horrified. But it does not disturb your equanimity if now and then, when you are present, an absent one is put in a bad light by a suggestive speech or may be, by a very significant gesture which implies more than can be said in words.

But listen and learn: The harm done by physical assault is more easily redressed than injury done to the soul, for the latter suffers in the loss of its good name.

Therefore, avoid all reputed tale-bearers with their venomous tongues as you would common murderers! They are just as bad and sometimes more dangerous.

[...]

Treat these as you would poisonous vermin, for they deserve no better.

They neither recognize nor do they pursue the noble object, the high goal of mankind which is to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

And, therefore, as the common aim is missing, when two or three people come together, they have nothing to say to one another, so they discuss each other. A habit they have cultivated and which has become pleasant to them, and as they continually practice it, they do not see how despicable it is, they have lost all sense of its baseness.