Spiritual Parallels And Authority

[Rev R]

I think for some people in Pagan circles this idea would be called "Spirit" or "Energy," although I'm not quite sure about the latter term because that tends to be perceived as almost like a force of some kind. We had a discussion group a couple weeks ago where people described what this "energy" felt like to them, how they could feel it moving between all members of a group when we held hands, etc. Seems maybe a little different than what you're referring to. I'll think about it more and see if any other terms or examples come to mind. "Spirit" might indeed fit, though... in fact, you used the term yourself so I wonder how universal this concept might be.

 

I had never considered this meaning about the blood until the Zen discussion....but then it just hit me.

 

The verse about, paraphrasing, "if two or more of you meet in my name", this one too popped into my head. This one seemed kind of Zen to me as well.....the something between us aspect.

 

I'm guessing you are referring to the myth of "mind to mind transmission" between master and student. It is said that awakening in Zen is passed along in a type of apostolic succession of masters beginning with Gautama Buddha and continuing along until present day. This is said to have originated in the "Flower Sermon" in which Gautama held up a lotus blossom before the assembly and a fella named Kasyapa.

 

I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvana, the true form of the formless, the subtle Dharma Gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa

 

Such a sermon is not known to actually exist. In fact, some scholars believe that it was entirely manufactured by the Chinese as a basis for Zen to be considered an independent sect. However, the "special transmission" of awakening has very deep roots in Zen.

 

A quick side note to explain the importance of this so-called transmission. Each transmitted master is said to possess the same awakened mind of Gautama Buddha making them in effect fully enlightened Buddhas. In theory, there are Buddhas walking amongst us this very moment. If we are to compare (and as some do, equate) the title Buddha (Awakened One) to the title Christ (Anointed One), this would suggest that Christs are also walking among us. A consideration that certainly damages the institution.

 

Now to the direct comparison of "something between us". I think the story of Senzaki roshi and the Murshid speaks to that. Both men were able to see this "something" in the other though they were of different nationalities and religions. It is an anecdote that we must add to the equation as we should not only look at the description of such experiences, but also how the "awakened" carry these experiences into the real world.

 

Can we say that a pedophile priest, a pastor who is an unfaithful husband, a transmitted Zen priest who embezzles money or sleeps with his students, or any number of so-called spiritual masters who are corrupted by their passions possess what you call "grace" or what I call "awakening"? I would say no. Certainly it is true that these folks may have touched it at some point in the past, but that which can be attained can also be lost.

 

Can we say that a non-Christian, or a non-Zennist who demonstrates selfless compassion and great wisdom possesses "grace" or "awakening"? I emphatically say yes. According to the Mahayana teachings on the Buddha-Nature, all beings are equally capable of awakening. While it is true that Christianity also teaches all beings as having the potential for grace the only gate is Christ in the person of Jesus.

 

However, if we utilize the concept taught by Bodhidharma, the alleged founder of Zen, that this mind is Buddha and equate it to the spirit of Christ in our hearts (aside: there is no conceptual difference between mind and heart in Buddhism, so we can just as easily say that "this heart is Buddha".) we can easily see that everyone holds the key to the Gateless Barrier.

 

"Therefore, Ananda, be a lamp unto yourself, be a refuge to yourself. Take yourself to no external refuge. Hold fast to the Truth as a lamp; hold fast to the Truth as a refuge. Look not for a refuge in anyone beside yourself. And those, Ananda, who either now or after I am dead shall be a lamp unto themselves, who take themselves to no external refuge, but holding fast to the Truth as their lamp, and holding fast to the Truth as their refuge, shall not look for refuge to anyone beside themselves, it is they who shall reach the highest goal."

~Mahaparinibbana Sutta

 

The river of life in Revelation relating to the flow of life and death.

If you would like to discuss the Great Matter, you might have to supply this biblical illiterate the passage you are referring to.

 

Although as I was saying the other day, the accounts I have read online seem just as random as what we have posted thus far.

 

You have to look beyond the accounts. Consider the neurological studies of meditation and prayer. There is a physiological component to these experiences as well. What you see as seemingly random experiences, I see as a universal rewiring of the brain. Mythic and metaphysical frameworks simply being tools to achieve this. Because our brains are rewired we perceive and interact with the world differently. Sometimes this shift is very radical, sometimes very subtle.

 

We are accustomed to consider man existing in three realms; the realm of body, the realm of mind, and the realm of spirit. As I said earlier, Buddhism doesn't treat mind as being different from the heart (or spirit). We can also take that one step further and state that mind is not different from the body. The difference in interpretation can be based on how we view the human.

[NotBlinded]

This is really interesting. I wish we had more data. Where is NBB? And I thought Mriana alluded that she has had an experience.

 

So far, I see that the TE's were life changing in the sense that they manifested pursuit or strong dilligence/faith in the experience and also treatment of others. I am making an assumption that the treatment of others would mean a higher consideration in a general sense.

Here I am!

 

Person: Sandy

Relgion: Oneness...Panenthetic Mystic Christian Hindu Buddhist? No...it's beyond all religions, yet contained in them all.

 

TE:

1)Instant understanding of oneness on a deeper level of consciousness.

2)It opened up contradictions to the Light of absurdity. There were no longer any contradictions on this level.

3)Infinite yes. Eternity yes. As measured in a timeless moment without time. Words are only words.

 

Messages associated or translated through the TE: Yes, messages above. I have a picture in my mind that I saw during one TE (a small one) that I would love to paint when and if I ever pick up the brush again. The vision isn't really describable other than a Presence enclosed inside space (yeah, I know how that sounds) that knows all without knowing. I would like to paint a picture of an eye in the middle of a black sphere with little pin pricks of light in it. All of these pin pricks are all things. Then there would be a person standing in front of the main "eye" looking in it with a reflection of this person in the iris of the eye.

 

Confirmation of religious practice by TE: No, transformed my atheism into awareness and understanding.

 

Interpreted reason for the TE by the person: A search for self I suppose. All the while I was reading things without understanding them fully. I knew there was something there, but the contradictions got in the way. Then I was slapped...

 

Number of TE's: 1 on this level. Many small ones that vanish when I realize what is happening.

 

Did the TE affect your treatment of others, or should it? Absolutely, myself included. I realized who I am and that is the same as all Creation. This realization causes me to view others as myself (not always...I forget oft times). I am more at peace which means those around me are also more at peace. 100%? Nope.

[NotBlinded]

Well end, I'm sure you were looking for symbolism that you could compare to Christianity in people's experience.

 

What we have seen however suggests that the experience is independent of the conceptual framework used to describe it. What does this mean? Nothing good for professional clergy, literalistic interpretations of scriptures, or exclusivist models.

Rodney, I was actually thinking the same thing and wanted to comment on it. I'm glad I read a little ahead to your post before commenting. The framework is very important I think. In my mind, Jesus only had the framework of the Torah to describe his experience. I think that each of us would use what we believe to describe it.

 

I was wondering how many had these experiences while in a religion and how many had them without religion and how that affects the framework that is drawn upon.

[Rev R]

Hey Sandy,

 

The framework is very important I think.

Frameworks give us the language to communicate our experience to like minded folks. Where we run into problems is when the framework becomes an orthodox institution.

 

In my mind, Jesus only had the framework of the Torah to describe his experience.

I'm not so certain there was an historical personage of Jesus. There again, I'm not so certain of an historical Sidhartha Gautama or Bodhidharma. With that said and assuming Jesus to be an actual historical figure it's certain that he would have been very much a man of his times working with ideas and language he was familiar with. The same is true for Buddha or any teacher/ thinker.

 

I think that each of us would use what we believe to describe it.

That is not always the case. My own experience led me to eventually abandon my previous beliefs along with rejecting many other frameworks eventually going as far as having no need to describe it.

 

Discussing the experience directly is often used as a tool to give a person's argument weight. Consider the Christian testimony, or the tales of any given guru's powers; these things are listed almost as a spiritual resume'. We grant this person authority because their tale matches our own description or because the tale jibes with what we are seeking to experience.

 

If this experience of "thus" is available to all, why do we grant any authority to these figures based on said experience?

 

I was wondering how many had these experiences while in a religion and how many had them without religion and how that affects the framework that is drawn upon.

 

A very important thought and to be honest I'd be more willing to give a spontaneous yet unclear experience more credence than any specific manifestation.

[Antlerman]

Discussing the experience directly is often used as a tool to give a person's argument weight. Consider the Christian testimony, or the tales of any given guru's powers; these things are listed almost as a spiritual resume'. We grant this person authority because their tale matches our own description or because the tale jibes with what we are seeking to experience.

 

If this experience of "thus" is available to all, why do we grant any authority to these figures based on said experience?

I'm pondering this. By no means have I cleared the clutter that I wish I could to see as clearly as in those moments. In thinking about the whole ineffable nature of it, and the effort to talk about, and pondering a number of the things you have said, which of course ring true to me, this is a sort of new sorting out for me.

 

In considering these recent dialogs about the transcendent, I'm at the moment considering what are the motives. These are deeply personal disclosures, the deepest I could possible reveal. I see some sort of profound need to expose this for me, in order to come to terms with something within myself which has driven what is frankly the core perspective, the deep heart of what is my very being.

 

Is there some vying for position of authority? That leaves me with some thought. In a sense, but not for personality sake, more for lending credence to my perspectives through experience for myself to trust that intuition, that direct knowledge. That pretty much defines the 20 some years of trying to find the Center of this for myself, to trust that initial knowing; beginning where I began.

 

I have no wish for anyone to give a damn about me. I only care that what I tasted as truth, which I believe profoundly to be part of all of us, can be realized for everyone, in whatever small or large manner that may be. In exposing it, in trying to talk about that ineffable, that indescribable, its in the hope that it exposes it to that part of us that hears that, that understands that existentially, in our very being beyond thought and idea and form.

 

I have been having a lot of thoughts tonight about the purpose of religion. It came to me after flipping through radio channels on my drive back from out of town, and coming across some Country Music channel. Musically it was exceedingly overly-simplistic and trite, yet one of those songs (by Allen Jackson) was voted one of the best of the decade was incredibly manipulative, shallow, and trite. But it was obviously appealing to huge swaths of people!

 

How much like the world of religion! But does it have value? Yes, even if not to me. Because even if it is the Wonder Bread version of anything nutritionally substantive, it at the least got those who found value in it to touch into, towards, that internal interpretation of the world inside themselves.

 

That's what religion does. It gets people looking inward, to something more than just the material world, even if the gems they dip their hands into look more like what I would see as common stones, which if polished could possibly reveal unimaginable beauty. I'm still working on my thoughts to this.

 

Anyway Rodney, I greatly value your contributions to these discussions. I hold you in great respect.

[Guest end3]

Discussing the experience directly is often used as a tool to give a person's argument weight. Consider the Christian testimony, or the tales of any given guru's powers; these things are listed almost as a spiritual resume'. We grant this person authority because their tale matches our own description or because the tale jibes with what we are seeking to experience.

 

If this experience of "thus" is available to all, why do we grant any authority to these figures based on said experience?

I'm pondering this. By no means have I cleared the clutter that I wish I could to see as clearly as in those moments. In thinking about the whole ineffable nature of it, and the effort to talk about, and pondering a number of the things you have said, which of course ring true to me, this is a sort of new sorting out for me.

 

In considering these recent dialogs about the transcendent, I'm at the moment considering what are the motives. These are deeply personal disclosures, the deepest I could possible reveal. I see some sort of profound need to expose this for me, in order to come to terms with something within myself which has driven what is frankly the core perspective, the deep heart of what is my very being.

 

Is there some vying for position of authority? That leaves me with some thought. In a sense, but not for personality sake, more for lending credence to my perspectives through experience for myself to trust that intuition, that direct knowledge. That pretty much defines the 20 some years of trying to find the Center of this for myself, to trust that initial knowing; beginning where I began.

 

I have no wish for anyone to give a damn about me. I only care that what I tasted as truth, which I believe profoundly to be part of all of us, can be realized for everyone, in whatever small or large manner that may be. In exposing it, in trying to talk about that ineffable, that indescribable, its in the hope that it exposes it to that part of us that hears that, that understands that existentially, in our very being beyond thought and idea and form.

 

I have been having a lot of thoughts tonight about the purpose of religion. It came to me after flipping through radio channels on my drive back from out of town, and coming across some Country Music channel. Musically it was exceedingly overly-simplistic and trite, yet one of those songs (by Allen Jackson) was voted one of the best of the decade was incredibly manipulative, shallow, and trite. But it was obviously appealing to huge swaths of people!

 

How much like the world of religion! But does it have value? Yes, even if not to me. Because even if it is the Wonder Bread version of anything nutritionally substantive, it at the least got those who found value in it to touch into, towards, that internal interpretation of the world inside themselves.

 

That's what religion does. It gets people looking inward, to something more than just the material world, even if the gems they dip their hands into look more like what I would see as common stones, which if polished could possibly reveal unimaginable beauty. I'm still working on my thoughts to this.

 

Anyway Rodney, I greatly value your contributions to these discussions. I hold you in great respect.

 

Interesting comments.

 

I was thinking about what you had said a time back K about "god" being a drifting directional thing based on society. In that, my question is, does society typically migrate to an absolute, that is, a something that probably will hold from now on. Is there a difference between a societal god and perhaps some true God.

 

From what Rev said, I did notice that when I started "seeing" in the same framework/language that I really had a good feeling about the fact that we DO share some common thoughts about God. I even shared a minute bit of Zen with the teenage group on Wednesday night.

 

To an extent these days, I feel a little ambivalent about anything other than the "absolute" stuff for me that grounds me somewhere.....my experiences....particularly the big one.

 

I know this doesn't make much sense, but I thought I would put it out there.

 

btw K, the motive for me has always been a resting or peace to my life.

 

Back to what Rev said about granting authority to those that share what we do or look for. Has it not been shown at least a bit that often those that are given "authority" are not the one's with a common vision? Artists, musicians, religious figures, each dedicating or losing their lives to this vision?

 

Sorry for the rambling...just can't put my finger on the question today.

 

Happy New Year peeps.

[Shyone]

 

I was thinking about what you had said a time back K about "god" being a drifting directional thing based on society. In that, my question is, does society typically migrate to an absolute, that is, a something that probably will hold from now on. Is there a difference between a societal god and perhaps some true God.

Happy New Year peeps.

Happy New Year!

 

I lost my thinking cap, so please ignore if there are no thoughts worth considering in this post.

 

I was thinking (!) about Plato's forms. The perfect form; believed to exist in some other dimension. He proposed that for everything on Earth, there was a "type" that was absolutely perfect that existed in some other realm. Imagine a rose: However good it might look, on some level it would have flaws or imperfections, or it would somehow be not as good as another rose somewhere else (and that rose too would have some imperfection). But each of these roses had a perfect model in another realm which was accessible to us conceptually.

 

After I learned about this concept, I thought about the arguments for god based on our ability to conceive of god which might be defined as, "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." Perfect - without flaw or blemish, existing in another realm.

 

Anyway, Anselm notwithstanding, I could see that humanity likes, admires, aspires to perfection in everything. We cannot ever find such perfection on Earth, so we imagine that such perfection exists elsewhere. Perfect justice, perfect love, perfect happiness and contentment.

 

So I think society, in the sense of our societal aspirations, does tend to the absolute.

 

This post isn't perfect, and I apologise. But there is a post in another realm with my name on it that is perfect. I refer you to that post.

[Rev R]

Heya Keith,

Happy New Year!

 

In considering these recent dialogs about the transcendent, I'm at the moment considering what are the motives. These are deeply personal disclosures, the deepest I could possible reveal. I see some sort of profound need to expose this for me, in order to come to terms with something within myself which has driven what is frankly the core perspective, the deep heart of what is my very being.

Oh I absolutely agree that these experiences are deeply personal. Not only is there an effort to come to terms with it but I'd guess there is also a need to know that you are not alone. You are and you aren't.

 

 

Is there some vying for position of authority?

I wasn't necessarily speaking of this particular discussion. Thankfully End did a good job at making a form to make the description of our respective experiences somewhat clinical. In that sense we (meaning all participants) weren't in a spiritual penis measuring contest but simply providing fuel for the fire.

 

The comment was more a musing from my experience. For example, I was a member of an online sangha which there was a serious undercurrent of "I'm more Zen than you." Folks vied to come up with the wittiest one liner or the most profound and well thought statement. It seemed to me an attempt to impress not only their fellows but also the transmitted teacher who founded the group. A struggle for someone to recognize their wisdom, and perhaps angling for the much vaunted "Dharma transmission".

 

It wasn't just there but in several places. I guess it's human nature as tribal animals.

 

I have no wish for anyone to give a damn about me. I only care that what I tasted as truth, which I believe profoundly to be part of all of us, can be realized for everyone, in whatever small or large manner that may be. In exposing it, in trying to talk about that ineffable, that indescribable, its in the hope that it exposes it to that part of us that hears that, that understands that existentially, in our very being beyond thought and idea and form.

Agreed. I don't wish to be a teacher, much less a "master", but I think that sometimes we have the role thrust upon us (the fact that Rev is my screen name probably doesn't help all that much ).

 

That's what religion does. It gets people looking inward, to something more than just the material world, even if the gems they dip their hands into look more like what I would see as common stones, which if polished could possibly reveal unimaginable beauty. I'm still working on my thoughts to this.

Perhaps that is what religion is intended to do and probably does do for some. I would suggest that the vast majority in all religions are simply doing a dance. Of course the dance might be all that a particular person needs.

 

Anyway Rodney, I greatly value your contributions to these discussions. I hold you in great respect.

Aye Keith, it is a pleasure to chat with you. I shall try to keep myself worthy of that respect.

 

End,

Happy New Year to you as well.

 

Back to what Rev said about granting authority to those that share what we do or look for. Has it not been shown at least a bit that often those that are given "authority" are not the one's with a common vision? Artists, musicians, religious figures, each dedicating or losing their lives to this vision?

The true authority lies within us. Respecting someone's wisdom should never come with the price of being subservient to it.

[Rev R]

I even shared a minute bit of Zen with the teenage group on Wednesday night.

 

I'm curious as to what this "minute bit of Zen" was.

[par4dcourse]

TE's? Legend has it that if you smoke a killer splif and play Black Sabbath backwards you'll see god.

[Rev R]

TE's? Legend has it that if you smoke a killer splif and play Black Sabbath backwards you'll see god.

 

Tried it...doesn't work. I did lose more socks and underwear in the wash after doing so.

[Antlerman]

I was thinking about what you had said a time back K about "god" being a drifting directional thing based on society. In that, my question is, does society typically migrate to an absolute, that is, a something that probably will hold from now on. Is there a difference between a societal god and perhaps some true God.

This kind of comes to the question of objective reality. I believe try to understand the nature of reality as best as we can, and what happens is those understandings become the face of reality, and our experience of it. For all intents and purposes those understandings and our interactions with them are reality to us. But as our understandings grow and change, so does what is real to us. What was true once, is no longer true. But it served as truth in both cases.

 

Yet outside that, there is something there that simply is what it is, independent of anyone's understanding or awareness of it. At the best we can only hope to have stronger ideas about what that something is, and that through that we gain a stronger connection with it.

 

What I was talking about before about beliefs in God, I still hold as true, that people create God in their own image and serve him so he can serve them. That is the sacred canopy as part of our social construction of reality. Ideas about the world and our languages shape and influence how we interact with it. The sacred canopy takes those ideals and values found in a society and places them in the heavenly sphere to give validity to them, force, and focus. It is truth, because it's God's truth. Even though clearly that truth is cultural.

 

That's why you clearly see shifts in understanding of God present in the Bible, from Jehovah as one of a pantheon of deities; to the primary deity; to the only true deity; to the borderless universal deity, to the God of Love and universal salvation through Jesus, and so on, picking up views from other cultures and merging and blending and evolving God in a reflection of the evolving sensibilities of societies and cultures in a growing cosmopolitan world. God, in a religion way, is part of that social evolution, a language system on the order of the sacred in order to help facilitate those changes.

 

Does God exist outside that? If people were suddenly no longer alive anywhere in the universe, would "God" also die? At a time in considering this, coming to that understanding, I would have said yes, but I see things differently now. Or rather I take into account things I had set aside in order to try to gain a larger perspective on it.

 

I say that what we see as "God" expressed within these social systems is something existential, something within our natures coming through, being expressed in social formation itself, being expressed in our very evolution. It's through these systems of signs that we can see a core truth, an expression of that living spirit within us through nature. If we all died, what we cease to exist would be our understanding. Not existence itself. And its that nature of existence that is both transcendent and fundamental to all material being.

 

So in religion, even though it functions mainly as that sacred canopy of our socially created reality, it has some fundamental truth to it as expressions of our humanity, which is a product of what I believe to be a spiritual world. But none of those understandings are ultimately authoritative or absolute. We want them to be, but they cannot be because we are continually in growth.

 

But in religion you also have those who go beyond that 'lower-level' function of it and are the mystics, who explore deeply inside that nature of it. It's at those points, religions begin to find commonality that transcends all those differences of worldviews that their myth structures created for their societies. (Goodnight, all you need do is listen to American Conservative read the Bible to support their worldviews of their society - people use the Bible all the time for that exact thing). In that mystical realm there is commonality.

 

In looking just now to see what Wiki has to say about mysticism I just found this which sounds a lot like what I just said. It might worth your looking at the whole article:

 

"Mystics hold that there is a deeper or more fundamental state of existence beneath the observable, day-to day world of phenomena, and that in fact the ordinary world is superficial or epiphenomenal. Often mysticisms center on the teachings of individuals who are considered to have special insight, and in some cases entire non-mystical (doctrine-based) faiths have arisen around these leaders and their teachings, with few or no mystical practitioners remaining."

 

It's my belief that Jesus, mainly as presented in Gospel John, is very much reflective of a mystical school in his name. It's of course debatable how much were Jesus' actual words, or even if a real Jesus was like that, but nevertheless "Jesus" in that is embodying that mystical perception and life. I think this is why John always appealed to me much more than Matthew and the other Gospels.

 

But alas and alack, it became a religion, as it says in that article, "with few or no mystical practitioners remaining." In fact, mystics in historic Christianity have often been a bit of a oddity and had to be cautious in expressing the direct connections with the Divine as it challenged how the religion itself was structured to work. It challenged its construction as that sacred canopy. If you look at Saint Theresa of Avila as one example you can hear expressions of caution.

 

From what Rev said, I did notice that when I started "seeing" in the same framework/language that I really had a good feeling about the fact that we DO share some common thoughts about God. I even shared a minute bit of Zen with the teenage group on Wednesday night.

You should get this book I linked you to earlier. I just got it myself, and though it seems pretty basic, it has some good things in there you will find will help you. I had to see what was in there myself, since I felt to point you to it.

 

Yes, it is in the mystical that all these things become more evident as to their universal nature.

 

To an extent these days, I feel a little ambivalent about anything other than the "absolute" stuff for me that grounds me somewhere.....my experiences....particularly the big one.

I guess I would say they are absolute, but be careful to think your understanding or interpretation of it is absolute. In my experience is was Absolute in its Being, but understanding it is a lifetime of searching, within and without. To me, anything that violates the Spirit of that Absolute, is error. Anything that agrees with that Spirit, contains a light of that Truth. Often times, that will challenge our understandings, our beliefs, and especially our religions.

[NotBlinded]

 

I think that each of us would use what we believe to describe it.

That is not always the case. My own experience led me to eventually abandon my previous beliefs along with rejecting many other frameworks eventually going as far as having no need to describe it.

 

Discussing the experience directly is often used as a tool to give a person's argument weight. Consider the Christian testimony, or the tales of any given guru's powers; these things are listed almost as a spiritual resume'. We grant this person authority because their tale matches our own description or because the tale jibes with what we are seeking to experience.

 

If this experience of "thus" is available to all, why do we grant any authority to these figures based on said experience?

That makes sense and I do agree.

 

I was also lead away from a lack of belief into a belief of "I have no idea". Yet, that belief of no-belief is something that is much more than a lack of belief. It goes from a negation of anything to an all-emcompassing "nothing". I know that makes sense to you. To me, it's the pinnacle of faith...letting go in order to receive all.

[Rev R]

To me, it's the pinnacle of faith...letting go in order to receive all.

 

Or as the old man said in the story, "You must first empty your cup to taste my tea."

 

I think it should be said that this process of letting go is continual. Well, at least for me it is.

[Guest end3]

 

I think that each of us would use what we believe to describe it.

That is not always the case. My own experience led me to eventually abandon my previous beliefs along with rejecting many other frameworks eventually going as far as having no need to describe it.

 

Discussing the experience directly is often used as a tool to give a person's argument weight. Consider the Christian testimony, or the tales of any given guru's powers; these things are listed almost as a spiritual resume'. We grant this person authority because their tale matches our own description or because the tale jibes with what we are seeking to experience.

 

If this experience of "thus" is available to all, why do we grant any authority to these figures based on said experience?

That makes sense and I do agree.

 

I was also lead away from a lack of belief into a belief of "I have no idea". Yet, that belief of no-belief is something that is much more than a lack of belief. It goes from a negation of anything to an all-emcompassing "nothing". I know that makes sense to you. To me, it's the pinnacle of faith...letting go in order to receive all.

 

Oh, I can't resist....you mean like Jesus on the Cross?

[NotBlinded]

 

I was also lead away from a lack of belief into a belief of "I have no idea". Yet, that belief of no-belief is something that is much more than a lack of belief. It goes from a negation of anything to an all-emcompassing "nothing". I know that makes sense to you. To me, it's the pinnacle of faith...letting go in order to receive all.

 

Oh, I can't resist....you mean like Jesus on the Cross?

Actually, yes! He let it all go indeed. Such wonderful symbolism!

[NotBlinded]

To me, it's the pinnacle of faith...letting go in order to receive all.

 

Or as the old man said in the story, "You must first empty your cup to taste my tea."

 

I think it should be said that this process of letting go is continual. Well, at least for me it is.

I like that. I hadn't heard that story before. The symbolism is there with end also as he said above.

 

This is what I love about looking at different relgions. They are saying the same thing, because we are all human, but with different symbols.

 

It is continual...at least when I don't forget. I sure feel better when I remember to let things go though.

[Shyone]

 

I was also lead away from a lack of belief into a belief of "I have no idea". Yet, that belief of no-belief is something that is much more than a lack of belief. It goes from a negation of anything to an all-emcompassing "nothing". I know that makes sense to you. To me, it's the pinnacle of faith...letting go in order to receive all.

 

Oh, I can't resist....you mean like Jesus on the Cross?

Actually, yes! He let it all go indeed. Such wonderful symbolism!

I'm not sure he had a choice...

[NotBlinded]

 

I was also lead away from a lack of belief into a belief of "I have no idea". Yet, that belief of no-belief is something that is much more than a lack of belief. It goes from a negation of anything to an all-emcompassing "nothing". I know that makes sense to you. To me, it's the pinnacle of faith...letting go in order to receive all.

 

Oh, I can't resist....you mean like Jesus on the Cross?

Actually, yes! He let it all go indeed. Such wonderful symbolism!

I'm not sure he had a choice...

No, before that.

 

There is always a chance to awaken during suffering. Whether or not death comes is really beside the point. There have been stories of people that have accepted that they were going to die and let everything go and accepted it. Then they lived. Their lives were changed, so I've heard.

 

It's more about accepting the things you cannot change and letting go of the resistance to it. It's an inner transformation.

[Shyone]

 

There is always a chance to awaken during suffering. Whether or not death comes is really beside the point. There have been stories of people that have accepted that they were going to die and let everything go and accepted it. Then they lived. Their lives were changed, so I've heard.

 

It's more about accepting the things you cannot change and letting go of the resistance to it. It's an inner transformation.

The tricky part is "The Wisdom to Know the Difference" if you catch my drift.

[NotBlinded]

 

There is always a chance to awaken during suffering. Whether or not death comes is really beside the point. There have been stories of people that have accepted that they were going to die and let everything go and accepted it. Then they lived. Their lives were changed, so I've heard.

 

It's more about accepting the things you cannot change and letting go of the resistance to it. It's an inner transformation.

The tricky part is "The Wisdom to Know the Difference" if you catch my drift.

Indeed.

[Antlerman]

I was just reading something in the Gospel of Philip I thought you might enjoy End...

 

It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that actually exist unless he becomes like them. This is not the way with man in the world: he sees the sun without being a sun; and he sees the heaven and the earth and all other things, but he is not these things. This is quite in keeping with the truth. But you saw something of that place, and you became those things. You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father. So in this place you see everything and do not see yourself, but in that place you do see yourself - and what you see you shall become.

 

Does that ring true?

[Shyone]

I was just reading something in the Gospel of Philip I thought you might enjoy End...

 

It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that actually exist unless he becomes like them. This is not the way with man in the world: he sees the sun without being a sun; and he sees the heaven and the earth and all other things, but he is not these things. This is quite in keeping with the truth. But you saw something of that place, and you became those things. You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father. So in this place you see everything and do not see yourself, but in that place you do see yourself - and what you see you shall become.

 

Does that ring true?

Let's see. For real things, we can't become them just because we see them, but for nonexistent and imaginary things you "see" them and "become" them.

 

I'll stick with reality.

[Antlerman]

Let's see. For real things, we can't become them just because we see them, but for nonexistent and imaginary things you "see" them and "become" them.

Yes, you would never have made it into their inner sanctums. (these were a Gnostic community, btw). To me, this is very clear as to its meaning - symbolically speaking.

 

I'll stick with reality.

You'll stick with the material world alone. Not reality.

[Rev R]

The tricky part is "The Wisdom to Know the Difference" if you catch my drift.

It's not all that tricky.

 

Two words Shy...

 

Pay

Attention