|
|
Death
Aug 7, 2022 14:24:15 GMT -5
Post by ouroboros on Aug 7, 2022 14:24:15 GMT -5
Did you look into the mystical tradition of Christianity? The mystical traditions of the major religions are usually more concerned with the living truth than with spiritual correctness or phonetics and grammar. I hate to come across as one who knows. Spirituality is not a past time for me. This is a dangerous world, and I am it. There is no security. I live as a man on the wire, a face climber ascending a mountain. One wrong move and it's curtains. Please pardon my impatience in conversation. Christianity is mainly cooked up to create a context for Jesus. Each of the major religions has its own unique central message that comes through even in English. And every one echoes the same thing: a cry in the emptiness calling out to me. The only exception is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. I am not ruling them out. They have not caused me to look closely into them. I did study the Hadith but it contains pithy sayings in the vein of George Bernard Shaw. No mysticism. Mysticism is all around me. I feel it. Like satch, I can only see its forms with my intellect and senses. It disappears - like a deer slipping into the forest - when there is noise of human conflict and strife.
It comes when there is quiet, as Krishnamurti intimated. Conventional life is noise. In that din, there is danger. When we keep walking across busy highways, we are going to get hurt.
seems a bit contradictory. In truth there is nothing unique about each of their central messages, in fact to the contrary. It's a perennial philosophy so to speak that runs through them. Which isn't to say the heart of it is merely philosophical. That said I relate to your "cry from the emptiness". But if anything their differences are merely in the window dressing. And much of that is only to the extent that the message is 'tainted by man'. With some variation of expression into the mix. |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 7, 2022 14:56:32 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 7, 2022 14:56:32 GMT -5
The language they have spoken is Aramaic not Greek. It was written in Koine Greek because the alexander the great has colonized that area 300 years ago of Jesus advent. So to evangelize the gospel, they had to write in Greek. Who teach what? You don't know, yes? Then you should not be claiming that you know the teaching is lost. Rather you should say you don't know. Teachings are not lost but altered when the days was passed by. 70 AD matthew and like were written and little diviation from what Paul has written and then at 120 AD John was written and once again little diviation. Likewise it goes on. The teaching. You guys think that THE teaching is transmitted, and transmissible through words. Knowledge is transmissible. It can be passed from one to another like a family recipe. Even then, aunt Geraldine cooked grandma's pasta sauce like shit.
I know the Bible. stardust had a bad experience of Christianity in his family. My grandma's devotion to Jesus inspired me. I was dead set on a life in the priesthood as a Jesuit. Lost it halfway through college. It wasn't the hedonism in Sodom (NYC) and Gomorrah (LA) that killed it. It was THE teaching that freed me from the grip of the written word.
Why is it that masterpieces in music are always original works of prodigies and not transmissions? The magic of harmony is not in those dots and dashes of the musical score. It is in you, it always comes forth - ever new in the here and now - from within. You guys are using scripture like crutches. And now you are discussing the evolution of walking sticks. If you want to explore THE teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, you must be able to not just walk on your own two feet but be able to fly like me.
I didn't necessarily have a bad experience with (Southern Baptist) Christianity. I just found the limit, the point it didn't go far enough for me. After about ten years of search in Eastern philosophy and religions, and J Krishnamurti and many other things, I came to see that (fundamentalist, & Western) Christianity had a fundamental misunderstanding of the primary "mission" of Jesus. Jesus was all about change here and now. It was only at that point I began discovering the Christian mystics. I discovered St John of the Cross and read his The Dark Night of the Soul, which is based on his poem of the same name. I traced pretty easily where I had already gone through his first night of sense. And I was going through the second night of the spirit, which is immeasurably more difficult. At the same time I started discovering the Russian mystics of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Unseen Warfare by St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain was a significant book for me. He is also the one who collected the writings of the Philokalia, which I started reading. These go back to the 4th century. I never deserted Jesus, I just kept discovering the depths, of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 7, 2022 15:33:58 GMT -5
Post by sree on Aug 7, 2022 15:33:58 GMT -5
If you do, then that would be the benchmark of delusion to judge my condition by. But then, if you know what delusion is, then you are free of the self. Am I making sense here? Can you or some smart guy looking at this sort this out? I don't think that necessarily follows. I don't think you have to be "free of the self" as you put it, in order to understand what that would entail. Similar to how I might know smoking is bad for me but continue to do it. Admittedly that's not a great metaphor, but I spose I'm making a distinction there between knowing something and realising it. And I mean realising in the truest sense, as in being the embodiment of, (intransitive verb?, I'm not sure). But realising, in this case, would entail the cessation of the arising of those patterns we are calling self. It's an odd idea isn't it that we could know something we haven't necessarily fully realised. Hard to wrap your noodle around. I understand it might be a hard sell. No, it not a hard sell. You would not be able to sell it to me. I would not buy it. Just because you and everybody would, doesn't make it right. This is what is wrong with our world and why our society is rotten. Dad is a gangster and mom is a whore, but that's ok because we believe in freedom to choose. Meanwhile, we bomb you if you are not a democracy and violate women's right to choose what to wear, whom to sleep with, and when to kill off the sucker in her womb.
Forget about being free of the self for the moment. Are you free of sin? Don't get antsy over that word "sin". It just means "unclean hands". American legal system disqualifies a claimant right to justice if the situation resulted from bad faith on the part of the claimant.
In this case, you are a crook. You know you are a crook, you would condemn me as a crook. And you are appealing to the argument that it takes one to know one. Is this what spirituality is to you?
|
|
|
|
Death
Aug 7, 2022 15:46:26 GMT -5
Post by sree on Aug 7, 2022 15:46:26 GMT -5
The teaching. You guys think that THE teaching is transmitted, and transmissible through words. Knowledge is transmissible. It can be passed from one to another like a family recipe. Even then, aunt Geraldine cooked grandma's pasta sauce like shit.
I know the Bible. stardust had a bad experience of Christianity in his family. My grandma's devotion to Jesus inspired me. I was dead set on a life in the priesthood as a Jesuit. Lost it halfway through college. It wasn't the hedonism in Sodom (NYC) and Gomorrah (LA) that killed it. It was THE teaching that freed me from the grip of the written word.
Why is it that masterpieces in music are always original works of prodigies and not transmissions? The magic of harmony is not in those dots and dashes of the musical score. It is in you, it always comes forth - ever new in the here and now - from within. You guys are using scripture like crutches. And now you are discussing the evolution of walking sticks. If you want to explore THE teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, you must be able to not just walk on your own two feet but be able to fly like me.
I didn't necessarily have a bad experience with (Southern Baptist) Christianity. I just found the limit, the point it didn't go far enough for me. After about ten years of search in Eastern philosophy and religions, and J Krishnamurti and many other things, I came to see that (fundamentalist, & Western) Christianity had a fundamental misunderstanding of the primary "mission" of Jesus. Jesus was all about change here and now. It was only at that point I began discovering the Christian mystics. I discovered St John of the Cross and read his The Dark Night of the Soul, which is based on his poem of the same name. I traced pretty easily where I had already gone through his first night of sense. And I was going through the second night of the spirit, which is immeasurably more difficult. At the same time I started discovering the Russian mystics of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Unseen Warfare by St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain was a significant book for me. He is also the one who collected the writings of the Philokalia, which I started reading. These go back to the 4th century. I never deserted Jesus, I just kept discovering the depths. Great. Discovering the depths is good. Jesus, not so much. |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 7, 2022 15:47:45 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 7, 2022 15:47:45 GMT -5
I don't think that necessarily follows. I don't think you have to be "free of the self" as you put it, in order to understand what that would entail. Similar to how I might know smoking is bad for me but continue to do it. Admittedly that's not a great metaphor, but I spose I'm making a distinction there between knowing something and realising it. And I mean realising in the truest sense, as in being the embodiment of, (intransitive verb?, I'm not sure). But realising, in this case, would entail the cessation of the arising of those patterns we are calling self. It's an odd idea isn't it that we could know something we haven't necessarily fully realised. Hard to wrap your noodle around. I understand it might be a hard sell. No, it not a hard sell. You would not be able to sell it to me. I would not buy it. Just because you and everybody would, doesn't make it right. This is what is wrong with our world and why our society is rotten. Dad is a gangster and mom is a whore, but that's ok because we believe in freedom to choose. Meanwhile, we bomb you if you are not a democracy and violate women's right to choose what to wear, whom to sleep with, and when to kill off the sucker in her womb.
Forget about being free of the self for the moment. Are you free of sin? Don't get antsy over that word "sin". It just means "unclean hands". American legal system disqualifies a claimant right to justice if the situation resulted from bad faith on the part of the claimant. In this case, you are a crook. You know you are a crook, you would condemn me as a crook. And you are appealing to the argument that it takes one to know one. Is this what spirituality is to you?
UGK 2.0 (Wannabe) |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 7, 2022 15:49:59 GMT -5
I don't think that necessarily follows. I don't think you have to be "free of the self" as you put it, in order to understand what that would entail. Similar to how I might know smoking is bad for me but continue to do it. Admittedly that's not a great metaphor, but I spose I'm making a distinction there between knowing something and realising it. And I mean realising in the truest sense, as in being the embodiment of, (intransitive verb?, I'm not sure). But realising, in this case, would entail the cessation of the arising of those patterns we are calling self. It's an odd idea isn't it that we could know something we haven't necessarily fully realised. Hard to wrap your noodle around. I understand it might be a hard sell. No, it not a hard sell. You would not be able to sell it to me. I would not buy it. Just because you and everybody would, doesn't make it right. This is what is wrong with our world and why our society is rotten. Dad is a gangster and mom is a whore, but that's ok because we believe in freedom to choose. Meanwhile, we bomb you if you are not a democracy and violate women's right to choose what to wear, whom to sleep with, and when to kill off the sucker in her womb.
Forget about being free of the self for the moment. Are you free of sin? Don't get antsy over that word "sin". It just means "unclean hands". American legal system disqualifies a claimant right to justice if the situation resulted from bad faith on the part of the claimant. In this case, you are a crook. You know you are a crook, you would condemn me as a crook. And you are appealing to the argument that it takes one to know one. Is this what spirituality is to you?
I expect very few would. Regarding the rest of it, well you'd probably have to be more specific about what you mean by sin and unclean hands for me to answer, but it's prolly gonna be no, I'm not free of sin. And I don't know about crooks. Really I was just trying to explain to you why I consider that I better know my own limitations. Look, you can tell me that you're a squeaky clean empty boat until the cows come home, but it's gonna be no sale here as well. Carry on. |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 7, 2022 15:51:04 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 7, 2022 15:51:04 GMT -5
I didn't necessarily have a bad experience with (Southern Baptist) Christianity. I just found the limit, the point it didn't go far enough for me. After about ten years of search in Eastern philosophy and religions, and J Krishnamurti and many other things, I came to see that (fundamentalist, & Western) Christianity had a fundamental misunderstanding of the primary "mission" of Jesus. Jesus was all about change here and now. It was only at that point I began discovering the Christian mystics. I discovered St John of the Cross and read his The Dark Night of the Soul, which is based on his poem of the same name. I traced pretty easily where I had already gone through his first night of sense. And I was going through the second night of the spirit, which is immeasurably more difficult. At the same time I started discovering the Russian mystics of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Unseen Warfare by St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain was a significant book for me. He is also the one who collected the writings of the Philokalia, which I started reading. These go back to the 4th century. I never deserted Jesus, I just kept discovering the depths. Great. Discovering the depths is good. Jesus, not so much. ~You~ are never going to be the first. ~Somebody~ has always been much deeper than ~you~. There is a sense of recognition. |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 7, 2022 22:35:57 GMT -5
Post by sree on Aug 7, 2022 22:35:57 GMT -5
No, it not a hard sell. You would not be able to sell it to me. I would not buy it. Just because you and everybody would, doesn't make it right. This is what is wrong with our world and why our society is rotten. Dad is a gangster and mom is a whore, but that's ok because we believe in freedom to choose. Meanwhile, we bomb you if you are not a democracy and violate women's right to choose what to wear, whom to sleep with, and when to kill off the sucker in her womb.
Forget about being free of the self for the moment. Are you free of sin? Don't get antsy over that word "sin". It just means "unclean hands". American legal system disqualifies a claimant right to justice if the situation resulted from bad faith on the part of the claimant. In this case, you are a crook. You know you are a crook, you would condemn me as a crook. And you are appealing to the argument that it takes one to know one. Is this what spirituality is to you?
I expect very few would. Regarding the rest of it, well you'd probably have to be more specific about what you mean by sin and unclean hands for me to answer, but it's prolly gonna be no, I'm not free of sin. And I don't know about crooks. Really I was just trying to explain to you why I consider that I better know my own limitations.
Look, you can tell me that you're a squeaky clean empty boat until the cows come home, but it's gonna be no sale here as well. Carry on. It's not a matter of your limitation. It's my limitation that is the point of contention here. Jesus faced the same situation. You have no interest in the veracity of my claim that I am free of the self. The very idea is a blasphemy because you are the guardian of the gate to Heaven. No one goes through that gate without going through you. |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 7, 2022 22:53:55 GMT -5
Post by sree on Aug 7, 2022 22:53:55 GMT -5
I hate to come across as one who knows. Spirituality is not a past time for me. This is a dangerous world, and I am it. There is no security. I live as a man on the wire, a face climber ascending a mountain. One wrong move and it's curtains. Please pardon my impatience in conversation. Christianity is mainly cooked up to create a context for Jesus. Each of the major religions has its own unique central message that comes through even in English. And every one echoes the same thing: a cry in the emptiness calling out to me. The only exception is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. I am not ruling them out. They have not caused me to look closely into them. I did study the Hadith but it contains pithy sayings in the vein of George Bernard Shaw. No mysticism. Mysticism is all around me. I feel it. Like satch, I can only see its forms with my intellect and senses. It disappears - like a deer slipping into the forest - when there is noise of human conflict and strife.
It comes when there is quiet, as Krishnamurti intimated. Conventional life is noise. In that din, there is danger. When we keep walking across busy highways, we are going to get hurt.
seems a bit contradictory. In truth there is nothing unique about each of their central messages, in fact to the contrary. It's a perennial philosophy so to speak that runs through them. Which isn't to say the heart of it is merely philosophical. That said I relate to your "cry from the emptiness". But if anything their differences are merely in the window dressing. And much of that is only to the extent that the message is 'tainted by man'. With some variation of expression into the mix. And what is that perennial philosophy of Islam that runs through the I Ching? |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 8, 2022 9:32:17 GMT -5
Post by sree on Aug 8, 2022 9:32:17 GMT -5
Ok, let's get to work here. I have been wanting to respond to this when I first read it.
I don't mind honest observations; and I like your coming to the point. There is nothing wrong with stating what you see, and you see me as deluded. What does this mean? Doesn't your conclusion say not only that I am deluded but also that you know what freedom of the self is? How could you tell that I am deluded?
But with that in mind. Firstly, I'm saying I recognise and accept that those egoic patterns are still playing out here, but that because I'm conscious of the fact, therefore I'm not deluded about that. Secondly, I'm saying that you are misguided in your assertion that it's not happening there, when it's evident enough that it still is. Which I consider to be the case with you both because I can see it clearly enough as it happens, and because the criteria I deem for it not being so, hasn't been met. What I mean by that last part is that, even superficially, I consider your(s and mine) very lifestyle (the current system itself), isn't really conducive to fully no-selfing. But rather it is conducive to the continued reinforcement of egoic/self-referential patterning, however subtly. Even though you think you've opted out. I know other folks will have different opinions about all that. And it's true there are realisations that will largely undermine that situation. But in the biggest picture there's deeper ramifications to that sort of continued action we are talking about here, the 'engagement with the patterns' I mean.
You have made an important observation about "the current system" reinforcing the way of the self in daily life. I drive a car on highways the way a self does. I use a handphone. I use a computer and talk to you thru the internet. I TALK TO YOU! One self to another. Are all these the "egoic patterns" you recognize? I assure you there are tons of other patterns that would profile me as a regular digit in the human world. Based on that observation, you conclude that I am a self, a psychological entity just as you are. How do you know I am not acting the part? When I am not "on stage", the self vanishes. It happens. Is it the same for you?
|
|
|
|
Death
Aug 8, 2022 10:05:03 GMT -5
Post by ouroboros on Aug 8, 2022 10:05:03 GMT -5
Actually I expect very few would. Regarding the rest of it, well you'd probably have to be more specific about what you mean by sin and unclean hands for me to answer, but it's prolly gonna be no, I'm not free of sin. And I don't know about crooks. Really I was just trying to explain to you why I consider that I better know my own limitations.
Look, you can tell me that you're a squeaky clean empty boat until the cows come home, but it's gonna be no sale here as well. Carry on. It's not a matter of your limitation. It's my limitation that is the point of contention here. Jesus faced the same situation. You have no interest in the veracity of my claim that I am free of the self. The very idea is a blasphemy because you are the guardian of the gate to Heaven. No one goes through that gate without going through you. Agreed. I've been trying to explain that I'll be the judge of that. |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 8, 2022 10:06:36 GMT -5
Post by ouroboros on Aug 8, 2022 10:06:36 GMT -5
This seems a bit contradictory. In truth there is nothing unique about each of their central messages, in fact to the contrary. It's a perennial philosophy so to speak that runs through them. Which isn't to say the heart of it is merely philosophical. That said I relate to your "cry from the emptiness". But if anything their differences are merely in the window dressing. And much of that is only to the extent that the message is 'tainted by man'. With some variation of expression into the mix. And what is that perennial philosophy of Islam that runs through the I Ching? I prefer not to talk about Islam. It's too dangerous. |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 8, 2022 10:12:04 GMT -5
Post by ouroboros on Aug 8, 2022 10:12:04 GMT -5
But with that in mind. Firstly, I'm saying I recognise and accept that those egoic patterns are still playing out here, but that because I'm conscious of the fact, therefore I'm not deluded about that. Secondly, I'm saying that you are misguided in your assertion that it's not happening there, when it's evident enough that it still is. Which I consider to be the case with you both because I can see it clearly enough as it happens, and because the criteria I deem for it not being so, hasn't been met. What I mean by that last part is that, even superficially, I consider your(s and mine) very lifestyle (the current system itself), isn't really conducive to fully no-selfing. But rather it is conducive to the continued reinforcement of egoic/self-referential patterning, however subtly. Even though you think you've opted out. I know other folks will have different opinions about all that. And it's true there are realisations that will largely undermine that situation. But in the biggest picture there's deeper ramifications to that sort of continued action we are talking about here, the 'engagement with the patterns' I mean. You have made an important observation about "the current system" reinforcing the way of the self in daily life. I drive a car on highways the way a self does. I use a handphone. I use a computer and talk to you thru the internet. I TALK TO YOU! One self to another. Are all these the "egoic patterns" you recognize? I assure you there are tons of other patterns that would profile me as a regular digit in the human world. Driving perhaps less so, I think we can do that pretty much on autopilot (so, what we were talking about in terms of 'attending the actual minus thought'). And certainly on the face of it, it doesn't seem to be overly conducive to the reinforcement of self-referential patterning. Interaction though, yeah. Commonly it will involve the unconscious reinforcement of identity view at various junctures. Ego and such-like. It's hard to quantify but the short answer is intuitively, and in conjunction with 'ye shall know them by their fruits'. The enlightened don't do a lot of acting. So I'm talking about a process of discernment. Additionally, in the context that we are using the phrase self, it doesn't really vanish in those moments but persists in the form of subtle unmanifest latent tendencies. To some extent they still underpin and colour the mind-body expression itself even then. And when you whir back into action, those aspects that are latent when you're off stage will come back into play. I mean, you'll still be a bit of an ass, or not as the case may be. Depending on the nature of the predispositions in question, together with the conditions for them becoming manifest being met. |
|
|
|
Death
Aug 8, 2022 10:21:42 GMT -5
Post by sree on Aug 8, 2022 10:21:42 GMT -5
And what is that perennial philosophy of Islam that runs through the I Ching? I prefer not to talk about Islam. It's too dangerous. Why is it dangerous? If Islam's shares a perennial philosophy that runs through Zen or the I Ching, lay it out.
I don't think you are familiar with the teaching of Islam.
It isn't helpful when you refute my statement about the unique way each of the world religion reaches out to us and won't explain why you do that.
|
|
|
|
Death
Aug 8, 2022 10:45:38 GMT -5
Post by sree on Aug 8, 2022 10:45:38 GMT -5
It's not a matter of your limitation. It's my limitation that is the point of contention here. Jesus faced the same situation. You have no interest in the veracity of my claim that I am free of the self. The very idea is a blasphemy because you are the guardian of the gate to Heaven. No one goes through that gate without going through you. Agreed. I've been trying to explain that I'll be the judge of that. We are all judges of what is right or wrong, good or bad, true or false. This is our western cultural ethic of individualism and right to self-determination. I have pointed out that this selfish western approach to spirituality cancels the teaching of all the world religions of the East. The very idea of God, one Truth, or the Way is an abomination to the western mind. |
|
