|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 2, 2023 9:52:57 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. Only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. I see it as part of an unavoidable paradox to the human condition. The 'Now' is theoretically always available. Practically and realistically, it isn't. If it was, everyone would already be in it. In one way, the 'Now' happens TO us, so when it's not coming, what we can do is release our blocks to receiving it. It's not working to GET something, it's working to release our need to be in the way of it. So if one finds themselves generally struggling to be in the 'Now', or is struggling with anxiety and depression, use a damn tool. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 2, 2023 10:10:38 GMT -5
Okay, that was a great read. Loads and loads I rez with. I appreciate the level of contemplation that was obviously required to get to a point where you could express all that so clearly. By way of conversation....a couple of thoughts/questions that occurred to me 1) What you call 'purifying', I call 'transmuting'. It's a new age thing. I believe higher vibration energy transmutes lower vibration energy. So I think about the movement of negative thoughts, feelings etc in terms of energy movements. 2) My experience is that the light of awareness and becoming/being conscious is useful and powerful, but often isn't enough. My experience is that a positive powerful feeling is the transmuting agent of conditioning....it might be love, joy, compassion. Even sadness has been useful on my path, because within sadness, there can be extremely powerful love. Forgiveness has also been a useful tool for same reason. Faster EFT is also a super useful tool. Ho'oponopono also. This is just how it is for me obviously. 3) Like Laughter, I am unclear about the ultimate goal. What do you see as the benefit of no more rebirth? Why is that a good thing? Obviously dukkha sucks (by definition of what it is), but still....I'm not clear what is beyond that in Buddhism? Is there a sort of 'eternal formless bliss' or something like that? 1) Transmuting is a good word actually. 2) The Buddha said that if he were to promote one thing in particular toward enlightenment it would be mindfulness above all else. Ultimately I think it probably is enough, but that doesn’t mean to say there isn't necessarily more to it all than passive witnessing. In terms of the way that the pathless path would play out in the face of that. They talk quite a lot about the generation of positive, or uplifting energy too for example. As it being requisite. The negative tends to give way to the positive quite naturally through clarity but that's all pretty nuanced in the great scheme of things. 3) You can see what I said to laffy about this and although there's more I could say about it I'm disinclined to get too far into it right now for a number of reasons, chief of which is I'm all talked out for the moment. But perhaps more importantly, mind will inevitably make a bit of a dogs dinner of it, both in terms of my trying to express it and your trying to interpret that. In Buddhism it's actually classified as one of the imponderables, and it's suggested that engaging in this line of enquiry invariably leads to the disquiet of mind. They say it's simply not possible to know 'the sphere of a Buddha' where that state of being has not been directly apprehended. Obviously that doesn't stop us trying though and I strongly suspect there is discourse about this which is not readily available in the public domain for various reasons. What I will say is that I see it as possible to glean some insight into it through certain techniques and of course the newagers attempt to address this sort of thing in their ontology, although it's a particularly unrefined vision. The alternative is that the refined version will be extremely pointy. And I mean pointier than the pointer sisters wearing particularly pointy pairs of winkle pickers! .... Try saying that five times quickly.  Anyway, I won't pretend to be entirely clear on it either, but contend it is largely irrelevant to the situation I laid out at the start of the thread, in terms of value. And so ideally that's where the focus should be. The rest would take care of itself over time, however that unfolds. Okay cool. I'm happy to take a chance on my mind making a dog's dinner of it lol. Where I come from, the releasing of all suffering must inevitably be reflected/expressed in the world around them. It's why I resonate (from the little bit that I know if it) with the idea of 'Bodhisattva'. I cannot see a homeless person and say that there's no suffering within me. I don't always give to homeless folks, sometimes it doesn't feel like 'right action', but I can't pretend that I walk by without a pang. And that's just one example. Animal suffering can trigger me even more. On the flip side, I see there is narcissism to my own pangs of care. Abraham-Hicks certainly disapproves of my care lol. But we cannot control what arises, can we? We can only work with it. From the perspective of 'God' there is no mistake. Each person is living their life path they ultimately choose, and who am I to judge their life path? Who am I to judge Life, to judge Existence, to judge God? But judging happens, and ultimately, my uneasy perceptions of the world are part of what is creating the problem. So my path is the end of suffering for both myself and the world. That's just the way it is for me. Or at least the world in which I inhabit (I don't want to rule out the possibility of there being multiple worlds/timelines). So for me, formless bliss beyond all form is not where my heart lies (though my understanding is actually that when some folks die, that 'formless bliss' is one of the potentials available). I feel my path is to witness the worldly reflection/expression of purified joy and peace. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 2, 2023 10:12:13 GMT -5
P.S Have you read ''The After Life Of Billy Fingers''? It's not a deep book that takes concentration, but I found it absorbing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 2, 2023 11:26:43 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. And only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. Is the impersonal perspective where Tsu lives? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 2, 2023 12:15:16 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. And only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. This is for satch also. On the Yogacara thread Tagawa Shun'ei makes the point there is a something that presents continuity, from yesterday to today. He even says this something is fictitious. But he doesn't say it doesn't exist. There is undeniably a something, or you and satch couldn't keep a dialogue going with those here. The question is, what is the nature of that something. You and satch and ZD and others here, say the self is illusory. But I will say all day every day for a million years, that that self exists as information in your own particular brain. Now, Tagawa also says the very nature of this something, is that it has the capability of distorting everything, it's very nature IS distortion. Our only ~hope~ is that the distortions are not absolutely irrevocably distorting, everyone has available buddha-nature. If you guys no longer suffer, all I can do is accept you are being honest that you never suffer. But sdp doesn't trust sdp, the distorting factors. Now, Tagawa doesn't describe precisely my path, but it's close enough to be able to communicate truth, with others. Basically, it does not compute for sdp how Reefs or satch or others ~wears-the-persona-of-a-person~, and can say ATST there isn't a self-person present. I just don't buy this idea of contexts. I'd rather have truth that is true in any and all contexts. And I don't buy this business of, Oh, once you are SR, it will all make sense. IOW, I can't honestly say who is deluded, You (plural) or sdp. And sdp sort of has some skin in the game. These words are just rolling out, but from years of trying to consider your views. I have to follow my path, no amount of words you throw at me can alter it. This is probably biased, but zazeniac and ouroboros and lolly and andrew and sharon (and I'm sure there are others) have more integrity than all of you put together. Self-delusion is one of the attributes Tagawa Shun'ei discusses. Get that? Understand, that? Why it just might be a problem? What are ~you~, telling me there is no ~you~? I've been fishing (the bait hides the hook), I've been scammed (never bigly). Scam is the word of the day. I'd rather not ever be scammed, again, concerning anything. ...This probably does it for me for today...for now anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 2, 2023 12:28:59 GMT -5
The way I see it .. You aren't your potential, you have a potential. A 25-year old version isn't his 5-year old version, he had a 5-year old version (actually he has an endless number of 5-year old potential versions). Your physical-self isn't your dream-self, nor your inner-self, nor any probable or potential self. It is an element of your personality gestalt. Your physical-self isn't your family, nor your town people, country people, human race. It is an element of those (and other) gestalts. A cell in your physical-body isn't the physical-you, it is an element of the physical-you gestalt. A gestalt isn't a set of Russian nesting dolls. Your subconscious is an element of your personality gestalt. Subconscious and unconscious are different qualifiers. The reality your physical-self perceives isn't created by your physical-self, but it is created based on your physical-self's beliefs, emotions, expectations by your subconscious. Your physical-self uses its free-will to make all its choices, as your physical-self's cells do at their level, your family, your town-people, country-people, humanity do at their levels. When an element of a gestalt gets out of tune with that gestalt, it leaves it. There is no give-and-take, no consensus. There is an endless number of gestalts from which it chooses one that it is in tune with ("resonates", if you want). I can only write from my perspective. I can fit my perspective very nicely into the paradigm of ouroboros, which is very clear the psychology of Buddhism. Basically the way I see it, we kind of have double vision. You can pull on your eyelid and create double vision. So we have an ideal, and we have what we presently are. What we are includes a set of delusions, we don't see accurately, perfectly. These are the defilements, these are what we need to be purified OF. And they constitute our self, are in a real sense the warp and woof of self. So we have two views here. One views says yes, I understand there are these issues, but they don't matter, because in actuality, underneath, you are *not-these-issues*. The other view says, to have a good and free and life, you have to eliminate, to purify the obstructions out-from-their-point-of-influencing. It's not easy, they are an aspect of your very day-to-day living. I come back to Jesus, he said if your eye offends you, pluck it out. If your arm offends you, cut if off. Now, he was speaking metaphorically, but he was speaking about purification. It's not easy, the way is just to see and acknowledge, to admit what-we-are. Christians don't understand what Jesus taught. Do you know what confess your sins means? It merely means to see the truth of what-you-are, it mean to see-what-is, that's all confession means. This is step one in AA, to recognize what the problem is, and admit it. That is, to no longer be in denial. Values enter here. You have the two images, you have to choose one. We have to make a choice every hour of every day, the choice to see the truth, what actually is. Eventually, you an eliminate the obstructions, and have a "single eye", be whole. That's all salvation means, to be made whole. It's experiential, existential, it's not a mere belief. We're not to merely accept what-we-are. We see it, admit what we are, the seeing brings the changing. ouroboros has laid it out very well. And the seeing is painful, sometimes gut-wrenching. The problem is we can't see clearly BECAUSE OF the defilements. So our seeing is always distorted. Self-delusion says you're OK, no problem here. So we have to be purified of the self-delusion, we have to be purified of the thing that does not let us see clearly. See how that's a problem? If we think all is OK, we just move on, but most people are in pain, suffering. The function of (physical) pain is to show there is a problem. Dukkha shows there is a problem. self is the problem. The difference is that I'm saing "I am now what I am now, and I am evolving into something", while you're saying "I am something more evolved, and what I am now is a delusion". The former is the perspective of growth from known into unknown. The latter is the perspective of guessing the unknown, and discounting the known. I pick the former. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 2, 2023 12:45:00 GMT -5
I can only write from my perspective. I can fit my perspective very nicely into the paradigm of ouroboros, which is very clear the psychology of Buddhism. Basically the way I see it, we kind of have double vision. You can pull on your eyelid and create double vision. So we have an ideal, and we have what we presently are. What we are includes a set of delusions, we don't see accurately, perfectly. These are the defilements, these are what we need to be purified OF. And they constitute our self, are in a real sense the warp and woof of self. So we have two views here. One views says yes, I understand there are these issues, but they don't matter, because in actuality, underneath, you are *not-these-issues*. The other view says, to have a good and free and life, you have to eliminate, to purify the obstructions out-from-their-point-of-influencing. It's not easy, they are an aspect of your very day-to-day living. I come back to Jesus, he said if your eye offends you, pluck it out. If your arm offends you, cut if off. Now, he was speaking metaphorically, but he was speaking about purification. It's not easy, the way is just to see and acknowledge, to admit what-we-are. Christians don't understand what Jesus taught. Do you know what confess your sins means? It merely means to see the truth of what-you-are, it mean to see-what-is, that's all confession means. This is step one in AA, to recognize what the problem is, and admit it. That is, to no longer be in denial. Values enter here. You have the two images, you have to choose one. We have to make a choice every hour of every day, the choice to see the truth, what actually is. Eventually, you an eliminate the obstructions, and have a "single eye", be whole. That's all salvation means, to be made whole. It's experiential, existential, it's not a mere belief. We're not to merely accept what-we-are. We see it, admit what we are, the seeing brings the changing. ouroboros has laid it out very well. And the seeing is painful, sometimes gut-wrenching. The problem is we can't see clearly BECAUSE OF the defilements. So our seeing is always distorted. Self-delusion says you're OK, no problem here. So we have to be purified of the self-delusion, we have to be purified of the thing that does not let us see clearly. See how that's a problem? If we think all is OK, we just move on, but most people are in pain, suffering. The function of (physical) pain is to show there is a problem. Dukkha shows there is a problem. self is the problem. The difference is that I'm saing "I am now what I am now, and I am evolving into something", while you're saying "I am something more evolved, and what I am now is a delusion". The former is the perspective of growth from known into unknown. The latter is the perspective of guessing the unknown, and discounting the known. I pick the former. Honestly, I don't understand your sentence about what I am, it makes no sense, whatsoever. I'm saying that what I am, now, is a mixture of truth and delusion. The truth is not final, I'm a seed that has the potential to be more-than-it-is-now. The necessary path, is sorting out what's truth and what's delusion. IOW, until you do that, further evolution is not possible. You * build* the steps, of the path, out of truth. If ~I~ try to build the steps out of ~what-I-am-now~, delusion and truth, they will eventually crumble, and leave you standing in midair like Wiley Coyote. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 2, 2023 14:11:58 GMT -5
I see it as part of an unavoidable paradox to the human condition. The 'Now' is theoretically always available. Practically and realistically, it isn't. If it was, everyone would already be in it. In one way, the 'Now' happens TO us, so when it's not coming, what we can do is release our blocks to receiving it. It's not working to GET something, it's working to release our need to be in the way of it. So if one finds themselves generally struggling to be in the 'Now', or is struggling with anxiety and depression, use a damn tool. Now is all there ever is. You're at the centre of perception and time is in what you are. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 2, 2023 15:03:59 GMT -5
I see it as part of an unavoidable paradox to the human condition. The 'Now' is theoretically always available. Practically and realistically, it isn't. If it was, everyone would already be in it. In one way, the 'Now' happens TO us, so when it's not coming, what we can do is release our blocks to receiving it. It's not working to GET something, it's working to release our need to be in the way of it. So if one finds themselves generally struggling to be in the 'Now', or is struggling with anxiety and depression, use a damn tool. Now is all there ever is Yeah. And no. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 2, 2023 15:29:18 GMT -5
Why would anyone want an end to the endless rebirth of the Universe, constantly dying, one moment to the next? It's all in motion, ever in flux, constantly changing, and it's only ever a trick of the mind otherwise. You can look at a piece of metal, and it seems almost eternal in the inert sameness of it. But technology has extended our senses to reveal the astounding scale and scope of the sub-molecular and sub-atomic dynamics, constantly at play but escaping our eyes but for the shiny reflections. And, of course, you can always get a hint of this with your sense of touch. Similarly, looking outward. The scale and scope of what the mind reveals. The billions of years of star formation, life and death that it took to arrange the particular concentrations of the various elements that facilitated the long march of life on Earth. Without death, there is no life, and it's all just so achingly, wonderfully and blindingly beautiful. Let the cycle, cycle on. Heh heh .. as if you had a choice! No-one would, and what's being pointed to isn't really the end of the universe, as mind perceives such a thing. Even science tells us that the greatest portion of that is currently dark to you. Which of course only means currently imperceptible. Forget about the 'goal' and focus on the 'method'. It's just about bringing stuff into the light of awareness and the rest will take care of itself. Perhaps begin by examining minds preoccupation with the perceived goal and what underpins that. You already know the answer to that actually. And we both already appreciate the magnitude and the majesty of what comprises even the current experience.  Individuality is undeniable, but the nature of it can be realized. After that, mind becomes informed as to the dwad between the notion of reincarnation, and the constant, moment-by-moment dynamic that is the Universe. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 2, 2023 15:57:35 GMT -5
The difference is that I'm saing "I am now what I am now, and I am evolving into something", while you're saying "I am something more evolved, and what I am now is a delusion". The former is the perspective of growth from known into unknown. The latter is the perspective of guessing the unknown, and discounting the known. I pick the former. , it makes no sense, whatsoever. I'm saying that what I am, now, is a mixture of truth and delusion. The truth is not final, I'm a seed that has the potential to be more-than-it-is-now. The necessary path, is sorting out what's truth and what's delusion. IOW, until you do that, further evolution is not possible. You * build* the steps, of the path, out of truth. If ~I~ try to build the steps out of ~what-I-am-now~, delusion and truth, they will eventually crumble, and leave you standing in midair like Wiley Coyote. We expressed our views on this subject, and they are different. My view is like "I want to be healthy", while yours is "I want to know what illness I have", expecting that once you know that you'll know how to get healthy. I dispute that your way works, because on one hand you focus on illness and that perpetuates it, on the other hand you incorrectly assume that knowing your illness you'll be able to cure it, and most likely you won't. My question is "What do I have to do now", and looking for an answer from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, or at least using my intuition. Your question is more like "Who/what am I" expecting that once knowing that you'll be able to intellectually figure out what to do now. I believe that the latter approach doesn't work, ever. I just tried once more to make my views more clear, with no intention to convince you. I know that you have your free-will to make your choices. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 2, 2023 16:01:32 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. And only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. Even the logic seems flawed to me .. how to square purification with interdependent origination? But that is jut the mind, gaming, after all. I had a similar thought to yours here today. More importantly than the logic - and satch raised this as one of his original interests here years ago - I see this as related to a very old dichotomy. There aren't many Buddhists left in India, and Advaita flipped the duck/bunny of " no self" to " only self". So Ramana's inquiry is "who am I?". As ultimately, there is no inner, and no outer, this is just the flip side of "what is that?". So "ATA-T" is just a flip-side, mirror image of Ramana's "who am I?" or Niz's "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'". Only difference being the vector of attention, either "inward", or "outward". From the personal perspective, this is the dichotomy of subjective/objective. Focusing "inward", with "who am I?" can lead a person into solipsism (whether they want to see it that way or not). Focusing "outwward", with "what is that?", can lead a person into nihilism. Two sides, same coin. But I also think it's important to recognize the value of a silent, still (quiescent, but open and pliant) mind, regardless of how one gets there. And while human social systems are a disaster, asking people to treat one another decently really doesn't seem like asking all that much, to me. So I'm not totally anti "purification", albeit I have my misgivings and objections about using the notion. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 2, 2023 16:50:10 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't understand your sentence about what I am, it makes no sense, whatsoever. I'm saying that what I am, now, is a mixture of truth and delusion. The truth is not final, I'm a seed that has the potential to be more-than-it-is-now. The necessary path, is sorting out what's truth and what's delusion. IOW, until you do that, further evolution is not possible. You * build* the steps, of the path, out of truth. If ~I~ try to build the steps out of ~what-I-am-now~, delusion and truth, they will eventually crumble, and leave you standing in midair like Wiley Coyote. We expressed our views on this subject, and they are different. My view is like "I want to be healthy", while yours is "I want to know what illness I have", expecting that once you know that you'll know how to get healthy. I dispute that your way works, because on one hand you focus on illness and that perpetuates it, on the other hand you incorrectly assume that knowing your illness you'll be able to cure it, and most likely you won't. My question is "What do I have to do now", and looking for an answer from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, or at least using my intuition. Your question is more like "Who/what am I" expecting that once knowing that you'll be able to intellectually figure out what to do now. I believe that the latter approach doesn't work, ever. I just tried once more to make my views more clear, with no intention to convince you. I know that you have your free-will to make your choices. , is not what's pertinent. What is, is just what is, it's what's manifesting now, whatever is manifesting, now. And the only way to access now is via attention and or awareness. Attention and or awareness are the keys to everything. Attention and or awareness have zero to do with the intellect, with the conceptualizing mind. All the intellect can do is make maps. Maps can only help say where to look. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 2, 2023 17:35:57 GMT -5
This is Zen, at least the Soto variant, with one exception: all you mentioned is left unsaid. The reason for this is the mind's tendency to set expectations. To me what's most compelling about Zen is what is unsaid. Though the phrase no "delusion, no expectation" was often repeated. The "purification" you speak of happens quite naturally as we peruse thought. One begins to see the mind's schemes and tendencies. We are not instructed to do this, but it's a by-product of refocusing on the breath.As to reincarnation and karma, they are never mentioned. The whole focus is on the process. The act of meditation. One technique used to indicate that there were ways to amplify the scope of the meditative state (samadhi) was kin hin, walking meditation. Also chanting, where the focus was not so much the words as the sound. There were no grades or levels with the exception of priesthood. Kind of like the old Karate schools were everyone was a white belt which darkened as one practiced. In reading your expose' I am very much reminded of RM's self inquiry process. And I often say that Zen seems to dovetail into SI. Thanks. I appreciate this. (although I haven't taken time to read the walls), I can relate directly to that. Tolle makes two suggestions in Now. In the first, he predicts that the reader might start to chuckle at the antics of mind, and that was certainly my experience, even to the point of marveling at the nonsense. In the second, he comments that likely on upwards of 90% of human thought is negative, repetitive and ineffectual. Check. This can't be unseen, and in the resulting space, what remains is far more visible. Conditioning changes over time, in a natural process of emptiness, deepening. It's a different process from cycling through different phases and either improving or degrading. It's also different from the natural process of aging and decay, which is happening, in tandem, anyway. Beyond that, I'm suspect of any notion of "purification" because of the implicit notions of shame, improvement and moral stricture. And not because I've ever given a flying fuck about what anyone thinks I should do, but because of all the incredible waste in terms of twisted minds and the emotional wreckage of others I've witnessed and encountered in my life. People who mistreat themselves and everyone around them because of self-esteem issues. It's a disaster. It's a criticism of Christianity which I certainly understand, and would never try to argue anyone out of or apologize for. And yet it's Christianity that gave the world the idea that every human being has their own intrinsic value. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 2, 2023 17:38:25 GMT -5
It can only be no from the perspective of the Timeless, which is what the Eternal Now points to. |
|
