|
|
Post by DonHelado on Jan 31, 2024 15:19:26 GMT -5
Someone claims to have "attained SR" and yet lacks humility, gratitude, awe, reverence? The likely explanation is that they are a spiritual poser and a fraud. If you're unaware of human psychology, you might not be aware of all the spiritual posers in the world, and the motive they have to lie to themselves and others. The phenomenon ranges from mild and temporary (as when a student can mature past a partial realization), to extreme and permanent. Why do people look for ‘frauds’? To prove your point for you? To have some confirmed disapproval to hide behind? Why do people look at the world through such jaundiced, pessimistic and forlorn eyes? What are you talking about you silly hipster? Call a spade a spade, and a fraud a fraud. You protect yourself from the fakers, and you honor the real thing when it occasionally comes along. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 31, 2024 15:28:57 GMT -5
Almost never, but one should never say "never ever" because what may happen next is unknowable. I've gotten angry once or twice in the past at concrete truck drivers who nearly killed us in hot weather by pouring concrete too fast or too dry and didn't seem to appreciate how much they were making us workers struggle despite being told several times to "slow down" or "add some water." I understood that the drivers were either mentally detached from what they were doing, had no experience, or didn't care, but whether we want to call our attitude at that time "extreme irritation" or "anger" is anybody's call. Other than incidents with concrete truck drivers the only other thing that I can remember that generates extreme irritation is when someone pushes an idea or expectation that is clearly absurd or illogical. At a certain point one just doesn't want to listen to nonsense, and the usual response is to simply walk away. The main point is that when this happens without self-referential reflection, it isn't the same as when there is a sense of a "me" being offended by something. When there's no self-referential reflection, the response to any activity is empty. A small irritation caused by the hot weather and hard work, untended, selected from the endless possible situations the one that amplified into anger directed on external, apparently beyond your control, factors. That was a lesson to interpret, and draw guidance: pay attention to your emotions, tend to them timely. Surely, the deeper lesson is to identify the belief that caused the small irritation, then the anger. One such belief was that your experience was determined by uncontrollable factors, that may have even been guilty of negligence, careless and such. Identifying and removing / replacing such belief is the next step in your growth Same in the case of "clearly absurd or illogical", "nonsense" observed at others. That starts by generating irritation, adds to your past such experience, and when you don't address it timely, causes you extreme irritation. Again, that should be a lesson you interpret and draw guidance from, including identifying your limiting belief that caused the incident, and discarding it. Learning lessons isnt ZD's core intetest or spiritual path. Please understand i say that without any judgement either way. I see spiritual paths as a rainbow, and ZD's is a particular colour that shines very brightly. It doesnt mean i agree with him on all technical points, but i respect the path. But ive been here about 13 years (some here ive known longer than that). Over that period you come to understand that this is just the nature of individuality. I mean, i bet people here have ĥad the thought about me many times....'damn that dude should quiet his mind' lol. And they arent wrong for thinking that. Sometimes i think other people can see potential for our own growth, better than we can see ourselves. But it is just potential. The reality is that we explore at our own pace, and sometimes what we've got really is enough. On the flip side, I'd say that everyone here has changed at least a bit over the course of a decade, and that probably is partly because of the prompts, invitations and challenges here. So im not trying to discourage you from offering them. I guess im saying that its good to remember sometimes that 'the scorpion has to sting the frog, because that's its character.' |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 31, 2024 16:14:18 GMT -5
A small irritation caused by the hot weather and hard work, untended, selected from the endless possible situations the one that amplified into anger directed on external, apparently beyond your control, factors. That was a lesson to interpret, and draw guidance: pay attention to your emotions, tend to them timely. Surely, the deeper lesson is to identify the belief that caused the small irritation, then the anger. One such belief was that your experience was determined by uncontrollable factors, that may have even been guilty of negligence, careless and such. Identifying and removing / replacing such belief is the next step in your growth Same in the case of "clearly absurd or illogical", "nonsense" observed at others. That starts by generating irritation, adds to your past such experience, and when you don't address it timely, causes you extreme irritation. Again, that should be a lesson you interpret and draw guidance from, including identifying your limiting belief that caused the incident, and discarding it. Learning lessons isnt ZD's core intetest or spiritual path. Please understand i say that without any judgement either way. I see spiritual paths as a rainbow, and ZD's is a particular colour that shines brightly. It doesnt mean i agree with him on all technical points, but i respect the path. But ive been here about 13 years (some here ive known longer than that). Over that period you come to understand that this is just the nature of individuality. I mean, i bet people here have ĥad the thought about me many times....'damn that dude should quiet his mind' lol. And they arent wrong for thinking that. Sometimes i think other people can see potential for our own growth, better than we can see ourselves. But it is just potential. The reality is that we explore at our own pace, and sometimes what we've got really is enough. On the flip side, I'd say that everyone here has changed at least a bit over the course of a decade, and that probably is partly because of the prompts, invitations and challenges here. So im not trying to discourage you from offering them. I guess im saying that its good to remember sometimes that 'the scorpion has to sting the frog, because that's its character.'  I used his post only because it was such an obvious (to me) example of how "creating reality" works. I have no hope, nor intention to change his mind. Surely, to me it seems so obvious where others are wrong ... This reminds of my regressions into past-lives, and experiencing going through death into the "beyond". You feel like waking up to another you (more clear-minded, but not by a big step), very close to how you feel when you wake up from sleep, especially when you wake up from a lucid dream. I mentioned this because I believe that any kind of "realization" that still views what is around from the perspective of the five physical sense-organs, is still like being in the dream, not even a lucid one. Anyway, my post wasn't meant to suggest anything to zendancer, just used his story. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 31, 2024 16:18:39 GMT -5
I believe karma is a misinterpretation of how reality works. One's current situation is determined only by their own current beliefs and needs for evolvement. In no way it is a punishment, and it isn't imposed on us.
On the other hand, we chose the current circumstances to incarnate in (historical time, geographical point, probable reality, identity) that we deemed best for working on our chosen purposes. This means that there is a bias in whatever happens in our lives, that was chosen, not imposed, before our physical birth. But this isn't in terms of whatever is generally understood as "karma", it isn't caused by past deeds, and whatever challenges we face now we believed before incarnation that we'll be able to handle successfully, and overwhelmingly we do, even if this isn't obvious to us.
The challenges you face are meant to offer you a framework to fulfill your potential as decided pre-birth; they are a means to an end, different from just having to deal with them. This doesn't mean that life is predetermined, but that there are probabilities and nudges, and that we are guided along it, even if not consciously aware.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 31, 2024 17:53:50 GMT -5
Almost never, but one should never say "never ever" because what may happen next is unknowable. I've gotten angry once or twice in the past at concrete truck drivers who nearly killed us in hot weather by pouring concrete too fast or too dry and didn't seem to appreciate how much they were making us workers struggle despite being told several times to "slow down" or "add some water." I understood that the drivers were either mentally detached from what they were doing, had no experience, or didn't care, but whether we want to call our attitude at that time "extreme irritation" or "anger" is anybody's call. Other than incidents with concrete truck drivers the only other thing that I can remember that generates extreme irritation is when someone pushes an idea or expectation that is clearly absurd or illogical. At a certain point one just doesn't want to listen to nonsense, and the usual response is to simply walk away. The main point is that when this happens without self-referential reflection, it isn't the same as when there is a sense of a "me" being offended by something. When there's no self-referential reflection, the response to any activity is empty. A small irritation caused by the hot weather and hard work, untended, selected from the endless possible situations the one that amplified into anger directed on external, apparently beyond your control, factors. That was a lesson to interpret, and draw guidance: pay attention to your emotions, tend to them timely. Surely, the deeper lesson is to identify the belief that caused the small irritation, then the anger. One such belief was that your experience was determined by uncontrollable factors, that may have even been guilty of negligence, careless and such. Identifying and removing / replacing such belief is the next step in your growth Same in the case of "clearly absurd or illogical", "nonsense" observed at others. That starts by generating irritation, adds to your past such experience, and when you don't address it timely, causes you extreme irritation. Again, that should be a lesson you interpret and draw guidance from, including identifying your limiting belief that caused the incident, and discarding it. I understand what you're saying in this regard, but what I'm usually pointing to is something Zen Masters mean when they say, "Put it all down." They mean "detach from all of your ideas, realize non-conceptually what's going on, and proceed to live spontaneously, intuitively, and non-reflectively." If the intellect becomes quiescent, and there is no self-referential thinking, the body/mind organism will continue to act intelligently and appropriately in response to whatever situation arises. If one watches a sad movie, tears spontaneously fall. If a traffic light changes to green and the car at the head of the line doesn't move because the driver is texting, honk a horn to bring the driver's attention back to what's happening beyond his/her I-phone. If a concrete truck driver is pouring concrete so fast that it can't be handled, the workers yell for him to slow down the delivery, add water, or do whatever else is necessary from their POV. As Andrew pointed out, each human is unique and personalities and proclivities differ. This character walks fast, drives fast, and works fast in relation to most people. I have a high tolerance for risk and enjoy adventurous activities. My father was the same way. He talked so fast that people had a hard time understanding him. He walked so fast that most people had to run to keep up with him. He typed so fast that he gave up on secretaries and did all of his own typing because they were all too slow. Because I was curious about what it would be like to interact with the world non-conceptually, I pursued meditative activities that led to significant mental silence. When the mind does not reflect about what's going on, life becomes simple, direct, and spontaneous. Some people on the forum understand exactly what this means, and some don't. That's just the nature of reality, human variability, life experiences, cultural conditioning, and habits of mind. If we accept Enigma's definition that "beliefs are strong attachments to ideas," then many of us do not have beliefs and have no interest in beliefs. Everything that happens is sort of "in one's face," down to earth, and quite matter of fact. This isn't good or bad; it's just a difference in the way different people respond to different life events. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 31, 2024 20:07:14 GMT -5
Learning lessons isnt ZD's core intetest or spiritual path. Please understand i say that without any judgement either way. I see spiritual paths as a rainbow, and ZD's is a particular colour that shines brightly. It doesnt mean i agree with him on all technical points, but i respect the path. But ive been here about 13 years (some here ive known longer than that). Over that period you come to understand that this is just the nature of individuality. I mean, i bet people here have ĥad the thought about me many times....'damn that dude should quiet his mind' lol. And they arent wrong for thinking that. Sometimes i think other people can see potential for our own growth, better than we can see ourselves. But it is just potential. The reality is that we explore at our own pace, and sometimes what we've got really is enough. On the flip side, I'd say that everyone here has changed at least a bit over the course of a decade, and that probably is partly because of the prompts, invitations and challenges here. So im not trying to discourage you from offering them. I guess im saying that its good to remember sometimes that 'the scorpion has to sting the frog, because that's its character.' I used his post only because it was such an obvious (to me) example of how "creating reality" works. I have no hope, nor intention to change his mind. Surely, to me it seems so obvious where others are wrong ... This reminds of my regressions into past-lives, and experiencing going through death into the "beyond". You feel like waking up to another you (more clear-minded, but not by a big step), very close to how you feel when you wake up from sleep, especially when you wake up from a lucid dream. I mentioned this because I believe that any kind of "realization" that still views what is around from the perspective of the five physical sense-organs, is still like being in the dream, not even a lucid one. Anyway, my post wasn't meant to suggest anything to zendancer, just used his story. Reminds me of something I saw Bashar say recently. When we 'die' ('die' is a terrible word really), it's very much as if we awaken from a dream. Your past life regressions sound very interesting. My wife sometimes enjoys listening to a lady on YT called Allison Coe, who does regressions with people, then discusses them on YT. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 31, 2024 20:51:54 GMT -5
Irritation with no 'me' makes no sense to me because psychological reactivity is essentially self-referential, and it entails volition. Within irritation there is a dislike, an aversion and the urge that it be 'other than it is'. I think the underlying difference is, if you know what's true and what's false in self-awareness, the one who wants to be me can't become me. The one aware of the one reacting isn't reacting. Most of us don't know what's what because we're a bit distracted, the self isn't really noticed, the self-reference is taken to be true, and 'me' is in the driver's seat. Otherwise, it's a bit more like, "There you are". Now known, it can't really trick you anymore.
When I saw the reactive one it made no difference to me that it was wild with panic and rage. I was just watching from arm's length so to speak, so I'm with Laffy in saying only ego wants to destroy ego. It has all the tricks of distraction so it can slip by you and become 'me'. The one aware doesn't react, but the one we call 'me' is all reactivity, and irritation or annoyance perpetuates me by volition. In Buddha-speak we'd regard that perpetuation as 'rebirth', and that is the essence of karma theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 31, 2024 23:15:25 GMT -5
I used his post only because it was such an obvious (to me) example of how "creating reality" works. I have no hope, nor intention to change his mind. Surely, to me it seems so obvious where others are wrong ... This reminds of my regressions into past-lives, and experiencing going through death into the "beyond". You feel like waking up to another you (more clear-minded, but not by a big step), very close to how you feel when you wake up from sleep, especially when you wake up from a lucid dream. I mentioned this because I believe that any kind of "realization" that still views what is around from the perspective of the five physical sense-organs, is still like being in the dream, not even a lucid one. Anyway, my post wasn't meant to suggest anything to zendancer, just used his story. Reminds me of something I saw Bashar say recently. When we 'die' ('die' is a terrible word really), it's very much as if we awaken from a dream. Your past life regressions sound very interesting. My wife sometimes enjoys listening to a lady on YT called Allison Coe, who does regressions with people, then discusses them on YT. Our words and formulations, usually, reveal more about our beliefs, conscious and unconscious, than we realize. Saying "when we die" reflects our strong attachment to the reference defined by our five physical sense-organs, the immersion in the physical reality. To me, it seems like the difference between a student focusing on getting high grades and being popular at school, and a student focusing on acquiring knowledge and skills while in school, to use them not only in school. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 1, 2024 2:48:15 GMT -5
A small irritation caused by the hot weather and hard work, untended, selected from the endless possible situations the one that amplified into anger directed on external, apparently beyond your control, factors. That was a lesson to interpret, and draw guidance: pay attention to your emotions, tend to them timely. Surely, the deeper lesson is to identify the belief that caused the small irritation, then the anger. One such belief was that your experience was determined by uncontrollable factors, that may have even been guilty of negligence, careless and such. Identifying and removing / replacing such belief is the next step in your growth Same in the case of "clearly absurd or illogical", "nonsense" observed at others. That starts by generating irritation, adds to your past such experience, and when you don't address it timely, causes you extreme irritation. Again, that should be a lesson you interpret and draw guidance from, including identifying your limiting belief that caused the incident, and discarding it. I understand what you're saying in this regard, but what I'm usually pointing to is something Zen Masters mean when they say, "Put it all down." They mean "detach from all of your ideas, realize non-conceptually what's going on, and proceed to live spontaneously, intuitively, and non-reflectively." If the intellect becomes quiescent, and there is no self-referential thinking, the body/mind organism will continue to act intelligently and appropriately in response to whatever situation arises. If one watches a sad movie, tears spontaneously fall. If a traffic light changes to green and the car at the head of the line doesn't move because the driver is texting, honk a horn to bring the driver's attention back to what's happening beyond his/her I-phone. If a concrete truck driver is pouring concrete so fast that it can't be handled, the workers yell for him to slow down the delivery, add water, or do whatever else is necessary from their POV. As Andrew pointed out, each human is unique and personalities and proclivities differ. This character walks fast, drives fast, and works fast in relation to most people. I have a high tolerance for risk and enjoy adventurous activities. My father was the same way. He talked so fast that people had a hard time understanding him. He walked so fast that most people had to run to keep up with him. He typed so fast that he gave up on secretaries and did all of his own typing because they were all too slow. Because I was curious about what it would be like to interact with the world non-conceptually, I pursued meditative activities that led to significant mental silence. When the mind does not reflect about what's going on, life becomes simple, direct, and spontaneous. Some people on the forum understand exactly what this means, and some don't. That's just the nature of reality, human variability, life experiences, cultural conditioning, and habits of mind. If we accept Enigma's definition that "beliefs are strong attachments to ideas," then many of us do not have beliefs and have no interest in beliefs. Everything that happens is sort of "in one's face," down to earth, and quite matter of fact. This isn't good or bad; it's just a difference in the way different people respond to different life events. What you say about the matter of fact in your face holds with even a lighter-weight definition of "belief": an idea regarded as true relative to the opposite. But, as we like to jest, it's one 'o those: "ya' kinda' had to not be there to get it ..."  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 1, 2024 2:57:13 GMT -5
Karma, as I came to understand it prior to any existential interest, was the misconceived Western notion of a cosmic accounting system. This distortion is understandable, given the common Christian misinterpretations of the bible verse referring to "every hair on your head", and the notion of an "all-knowing God". Some of the more insightful sources I've read on these forums over the years offer correction to these misinterpretations. The Western version is mechanistic. The other versions are also mechanistic, but account for the merging of the two contexts: the relative, temporal context of what appears to you, on one hand, and the absolute, eternal context that you are, on the other. The existential truth, is simplicity incarnate. The ten gazillion thingies, not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 1, 2024 12:54:50 GMT -5
A small irritation caused by the hot weather and hard work, untended, selected from the endless possible situations the one that amplified into anger directed on external, apparently beyond your control, factors. That was a lesson to interpret, and draw guidance: pay attention to your emotions, tend to them timely. Surely, the deeper lesson is to identify the belief that caused the small irritation, then the anger. One such belief was that your experience was determined by uncontrollable factors, that may have even been guilty of negligence, careless and such. Identifying and removing / replacing such belief is the next step in your growth Same in the case of "clearly absurd or illogical", "nonsense" observed at others. That starts by generating irritation, adds to your past such experience, and when you don't address it timely, causes you extreme irritation. Again, that should be a lesson you interpret and draw guidance from, including identifying your limiting belief that caused the incident, and discarding it. .... If we accept Enigma's definition that "beliefs are strong attachments to ideas," then many of us do not have beliefs and have no interest in beliefs. Everything that happens is sort of "in one's face," down to earth, and quite matter of fact. This isn't good or bad; it's just a difference in the way different people respond to different life events. Redefining words creates confusion. This is the dictionary definition: link- belief /bĭ-lēf′/
noun
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
"My belief in you is as strong as ever."
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
"His explanation of what happened defies belief."
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence.
"belief of a witness; the belief of our senses"
Similar: persuasion conviction confidence
A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith.
Similar: faith
The thing believed; the object of belief.
A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed.
Similar: doctrine creed
A first principle incapable of proof; an intuitive truth; an intuition.
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 1, 2024 13:06:53 GMT -5
Karma, as I came to understand it prior to any existential interest, was the misconceived Western notion of a cosmic accounting system. This distortion is understandable, given the common Christian misinterpretations of the bible verse referring to "every hair on your head", and the notion of an "all-knowing God". Some of the more insightful sources I've read on these forums over the years offer correction to these misinterpretations. The Western version is mechanistic. The other versions are also mechanistic, but account for the merging of the two contexts: the relative, temporal context of what appears to you, on one hand, and the absolute, eternal context that you are, on the other. The existential truth, is simplicity incarnate. The ten gazillion thingies, not so much. Please give an example of something that you accept as "karma". |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 1, 2024 13:11:16 GMT -5
.... If we accept Enigma's definition that "beliefs are strong attachments to ideas," then many of us do not have beliefs and have no interest in beliefs. Everything that happens is sort of "in one's face," down to earth, and quite matter of fact. This isn't good or bad; it's just a difference in the way different people respond to different life events. Redefining words creates confusion. This is the dictionary definition: link- belief /bĭ-lēf′/
noun
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
"My belief in you is as strong as ever."
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
"His explanation of what happened defies belief."
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence.
"belief of a witness; the belief of our senses"
Similar: persuasion conviction confidence
A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith.
Similar: faith
The thing believed; the object of belief.
A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed.
Similar: doctrine creed
A first principle incapable of proof; an intuitive truth; an intuition.
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
It's understandable that people will disagree about definitions, and that topic has been discussed exhaustively on this forum. Many of us subscribe to the Zen outlook which disclaims any doctrine and points to a "transmission outside of the scriptures and outside of the mind." From this POV there are no tenets, beliefs, or doctrines that apply. The truth must be "grokked" directly, and the truth being pointed to is beyond conception but can be apprehended directly. You'll never hear a ND sage say, "This is what you must believe" or "this is what we believe." A ND sage will, however, say, "Each human must investigate the nature of reality for him/herself and find what lies beyond the concensus paradigm of separation." It's more a matter of discovering and directly knowing that THIS is infinite and undivided rather than believing anything. Although I think Enigma's definition of what a belief is is spot on, others will disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 1, 2024 14:05:16 GMT -5
Redefining words creates confusion. This is the dictionary definition: link- belief /bĭ-lēf′/
noun
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
"My belief in you is as strong as ever."
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
"His explanation of what happened defies belief."
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence.
"belief of a witness; the belief of our senses"
Similar: persuasion conviction confidence
A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith.
Similar: faith
The thing believed; the object of belief.
A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed.
Similar: doctrine creed
A first principle incapable of proof; an intuitive truth; an intuition.
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
It's understandable that people will disagree about definitions, and that topic has been discussed exhaustively on this forum. Many of us subscribe to the Zen outlook which disclaims any doctrine and points to a "transmission outside of the scriptures and outside of the mind." From this POV there are no tenets, beliefs, or doctrines that apply. The truth must be "grokked" directly, and the truth being pointed to is beyond conception but can be apprehended directly. You'll never hear a ND sage say, "This is what you must believe" or "this is what we believe." A ND sage will, however, say, "Each human must investigate the nature of reality for him/herself and find what lies beyond the concensus paradigm of separation." It's more a matter of discovering and directly knowing that THIS is infinite and undivided rather than believing anything. Although I think Enigma's definition of what a belief is is spot on, others will disagree. My original reply (my interpretation of your examples of "extreme irritation" instances that you experienced) was sidetracked by redefining "belief", then further considerations. When you believe / know that you are right in an argument, there are two available assessments of the other's position: he can't understand, or he understands but he has some motivation to support a "nonsense" (a term you used in your post). Interestingly, when you make one of these two assessments about the other, the other seems to automatically make the other of the two assessments about you. It is my further observation that eventually each side ends up acting the way that they assessed the other side. And all this, because honestly we take our beliefs for truths. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 1, 2024 16:25:18 GMT -5
Karma, as I came to understand it prior to any existential interest, was the misconceived Western notion of a cosmic accounting system. This distortion is understandable, given the common Christian misinterpretations of the bible verse referring to "every hair on your head", and the notion of an "all-knowing God". Some of the more insightful sources I've read on these forums over the years offer correction to these misinterpretations. The Western version is mechanistic. The other versions are also mechanistic, but account for the merging of the two contexts: the relative, temporal context of what appears to you, on one hand, and the absolute, eternal context that you are, on the other. The existential truth, is simplicity incarnate. The ten gazillion thingies, not so much. It is pretty simple that actions have consequences and you reap what you sow, but when a good bloke like JC ends up tortured on a cross, it doesn't fit the theory.
|
|
