Pascal's Wager

[kkawohl]

Pascal's Wager Is Flawed.

Pascal Wager is based on the Judaism, Christian and Islamic monotheistic belief systems which originated from religious conditioning. When people first acquired reasoning abilities, the first fear of an unseen deity came about when lightning and thunder caused them to cringe and seek shelter. Lightning and thunder were eventually thought to be punishment for evil deeds from a higher power that controlled the natural forces. Worshiping this power, which mankind called God, through prayers and asking for forgiveness eventually as the storm passed was believed to appease the wrath of God or the Gods.

This conditioning came was further reinforced when followers of these religions accepted claims that God had personally talked to his messengers who then relayed these “Words of God” to others. Human fallibility and misconceptions have labeled this “God” for the past several millennia as one who interferes with the natural forces and free will of people by threatening punishment to those who disobey his bidding. The God of our ancestors was then partially humanized in order to have the masses adapt to the thought processes of that time period which was fraught with superstitions.

Pascal‘s Wager is that “If you do not believe in God and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief, if you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything." This is completely incorrect because these assumptions are again based on superstitions.

The greatest scams which include deceit, swindle, and fraud, for several millennia, that have ever been perpetrated on mankind have been in the name of God. Many will disagree because "It is written in the Holy Books"; to which I say, "by fallible men who let their imaginations run amuck". The "Holy Books" (Bible, Torah, Qur’an) were written during a time when superstitions prevailed. Superstitions are an irrational belief that someone or something causes an action or circumstance not logically related to a course of events that influences its outcome. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

Christians, Jews and Muslims all claim that they live by the Word of God. They claim that God has personally talked to their messengers who have relayed these Words of God to the common folk in the writings of the Torah, Bible and the Qur’an. The followers must unquestionably believe these Words of God or they will be condemned. If that is the case, apparently the Words of God were either misinterpreted, God is contradicting himself, or we start all over again by each side claiming to live by and having heard the Word of God correctly. These so-called Holy Books could be inspirational and could help us in our journey through life if one discounts all the references to the writers vivid imaginations of physical sightings or conversations with God, Satan, snakes, devils or angels.

The Scenario

The souls of a Rabbi, a Christian minister, and a Islamic cleric appeared at the gates of heaven at the same time and they eye each other suspiciously. The gatekeeper asked if there is a problem.

The Rabbi tells St. Peter , "Ours is the true religion. We have the word of God that this is so and it is written in the Torah that God said that we are the chosen children of God, not the Christians or the Muslims."

The Christian minister says, "Jesus told us that he is the son of God and that the only way to God was by following his teachings and that unless one is born again, one would not get into heaven. What Jesus said is the word of God and it is written in the holy Bible".

The Muslim cleric says, "God has told Muhammad that he was the last true prophet and that everything that God told him was written in the Qur’an and that those who did not follow what was written there, would not get into heaven. Islam is the only true faith which had been promised to be free from being wiped away from its true path.”

Other souls appeared and some sided with and gathered around each of their leaders, while some other souls who sided with no one entered directly through the gates of heaven.

The gatekeeper told the souls who had gathered around the souls of their clerics, "In heaven there can be no disagreement and until you all are in agreement, you have to move to the Purgatory area".

No agreement was reached and eventually the souls died (Hell) because souls who were not with God could not exist.

The lesson is: Having tunnel-vision or being closed-minded, without compassion for the belief of others around you can be bad for the body and suicide to the soul. (end of scenario)

To assess Pascal’s Wager rationally, the questions then surface, “Is there a God and if so who/what is God? Where did God come from? What if we do not believe in a God? Most people will agree that if there is a God then God is spiritual; but does a spirit really exist? Was spiritual transcendence of the spirit into a “Dimensional Beyondness” achieved by many well known religious leaders like Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Bahá'u'lláh, Zoroaster and others of various faiths? Had they achieved spiritual enlightenment by mastering the art of spiritual transcendence. As a result of my own spiritual experiences I herby affirm the existence of a spiritual reality called “God” by mankind, but it is of no importance during our physical life whether a Spiritual Existence or God exists or not if one so chooses. Whether or not one believes in a spirit or God really makes no difference. Righteous living will determine the continuance and destiny of our spirit/soul. One's life can be enhanced by receiving solace and being comforted during life's trials and tribulations and by having our spirit rejoice by a belief or knowledge and hope of a spiritual continuance immediately prior to physical death. The alternative is despair of a complete and useless death forever.

Every person is born with a spirit, it is neither holy nor heaven sent. Unless one is completely emotionless, a spirit is present. One may say that emotions are psychological, (of the psyche) structuralism, psychobiological, but they are nevertheless of the spirit; which also subscribes to a form of natural selection. The spirit or soul exists in the collective mental processes of the subconscious. The subconscious part of the mind and is also where the mental processes of creativity originate. The conscience adds to and stores life experiences with the spirit/soul. If the conscience is anesthetized by other than righteous conduct the existence of the spirit gradually fades and is eventually extinguished.

Existence is reality. When physical existence ceases, conclusions are often surmised that all existence ceases and spirituality is sometimes perceived to be an illusion in the physical dimension. The Ultimate Reality is spiritual and is often an illusion to the physical reality. The "spiritual dimension” at some point interacts with the physical dimension ...that is where one can find evidence of the spiritual realm of God, although all of our scientific facts are applicable only in this physical dimension, not in the spiritual. The existence of spiritual souls or God, or God’s Spirit interacting with the spirits of physical beings can not and will never be proven by science.

Evidence is proof, something that shows what is true. Truth is established by testifying, bearing witness, attesting, declaring under oath that what is testified to, is actuality. In a court of law, as in civil action, evidence is presented and the validity of this evidence is assessed by a judge or jury who rule on it; their decision is accepted and it is determined that proof has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Throughout several millennia evidence has been presented that the Spirit of God has interacted with our spirit; this interaction was interpreted accordingly and written in the Torah, Bible, Qur'an, etc. The Ultimate Truth is indecipherable by the human mind and can only be divulged to the spirit which also often misinterprets its meaning, hence we have various religions and beliefs.


A child’s spirit is a part of the mother's spirit which is passed down to the fetus and is then separated from its host at birth. It remains partially spiritually connected to the past host until it is capable of receiving its own data by the development of the child's reasoning capabilities at about 18 months from its birth. At that time the spirit separates from the mother and the child develops it's own spirit. Being with spirit, unless one is completely emotionless, a spirit is present. One may say that emotions are psychological, (of the psyche) structuralism, psychobiological, but they are nevertheless of the spirit; which also subscribes to a form of natural selection.

The mind is unable to consciously communicate with the spirit. The conscience is the only communicator with the spirit or soul. The conscience relays information to the spirit unless the conscience is anesthetized by immoral acts or evil deeds. The spirit can not exist without a host. If the host or a mother with reasoning capabilities is not available during that time, the child's spirit bonds temporarily with the spirit of its physical provider. At about age 1 1/2 the spirit separates from the mother and the child develops it's own spirit.

The conscience relays information to the spirit. Consciousness arises when contact has been made with a base; (sense or emotion) this is when spirit initiates its first recording. The spirit is the database of the senses and emotions. If the conscience is anesthetized by other than righteous conduct the existence of the spirit gradually fades and is eventually extinguished.

There are several levels of consciousness:
A. On a scale of 1 to 10 rating, with consciousness being level 1 where the spirit accumulates data and triggers emotions.
B. The upper level of subconsciousness is at level 2; involuntary subconscious reactions are sometimes manifested.
C. The dream level at 3; a series of thoughts and visions are introduced.
Level 4 is deep sleep.
D. Hibernation or very deep sleep is at level 5.
E. At level 6 unconsciousness sets in.
F. Spiritual data is stored between levels 6 and 9.
G. At 10 the subconscious is at a point of physical imminent death.
The "deserving" spirit that has established lines of communications with Spirit of God is transmitted to the spiritual realm, filtered and cleansed of all negative emotions; then it bonds with the Supreme Spirit and then enters the spiritual realm or dimension to be with the Supreme Spirit, (God, or whatever one desires to call him/it) which is a spiritual collective of souls or spirits, consisting of Spiritual Pure Intelligence, Pure Rationality and Logic, the Ultimate Supreme Spirit.

A “deserving” (clean) spirit consists of ethics, morality, good deeds, kindness, consideration for and helping others; being "righteous" insures the survival of the soul. When the body dies, any soul that is not transmitted, and has not bonded with God, dies; it simply ceases to exist. The conscience is guided by its capacity to disseminate between pure and improper acceptable social norms. A determination is made by the conscience to abide by either the pure and proper, or to stretch the norm. Deeds contrary to purity eventually anesthetizes the conscience and lines of communication with the spirit and God are severed. Evil is not adaptable to, or compatible with Pure Intelligence. The cultural norm deduces acceptable proper behavior. If one lives thereby, the conscience is clear and no deity in the spiritual realm will judge or condemn anyone.

When a personality disorder affects the data input process, data is filtered. Brain injury does not supersede the soul, at that point data input simply ceases. If one seems to have severely impaired reasoning capabilities it does not necessarily mean that reasoning capabilities are not, or never were present; Sometimes reasoning capabilities can not be displayed or communicated to another.

God does not change with the times but our perception of who God is should change as societies eliminate their superstitious beliefs. God, the Ultimate Spirit consists of Supreme Purity, Pure Intelligence, Pure Logic, etc., is not encumbered by human attributes and has no needs, or a desire to be worshiped, prayed to, exalted, venerated, deified, or anything else that we have to offer. Human characteristics are to exercise upon others: power, control, dominance, destruction, punishment, revenge, judgment. Everyone is individually and personally totally responsible for his own soul's destiny. The destruction of civilizations, most sufferings and premature deaths are due to human frailties, stupidity or imperfections and are not God's doings. God, exists in a spiritual realm and never has and never will interfere with anything on earth or in the universe.

God is interested in and is involved in humanity, but does not interfere in any way in our physical lives. God guides the development of the universe and everything thereon like a Master Planner. Our relationship and interaction of our spirit with the Spirit of God is for our, not God's benefit. Truth and logic require a foundation, the foundation being our realization that our forefathers intentions for our soul's continuity was their conviction that God had personally spoken to his messengers and had instructed them in what God desired. What was considered the truth about God was whatever society adopted thereof during their time when presuppositions of the concept of God was compared to a required domination by a ruler who was capable of enforcing laws adaptable for the society of that time period.

The spirit and the spiritual dimension is eternal; the physical dimension may not be. The fact that everything exists as a result of everything else is the consequence of evolution, creation and progression. People have portrayed God as being mysterious when the concept of God is really quite simple. God is a loving, peaceful coexistence of spiritual souls including ours upon our physical demise. God's intelligence is ever expanding and grows with the addition of each soul. Every soul is like a separate cell or atom on earth which combines with other cells or atoms to make up the existence of every living person, plant, animal and even the air which sustains all life; so also do souls perform, either individually or in unison. Any soul or spirit that is not with God can not exist, and dies. Souls perform individually or cumulatively in the same way as entities in this dimension. Souls are a part of God as we are a part of this earth.

The bonding of the first two righteous souls, the first reasoning entities, God, originated somewhere in the universe, on our earth or on a planet in another solar system, possibly billions of years ago. The bonding of the first two souls created spiritual unity which expanded and progressed, created Cumulative Intelligence. Pure Intelligence requires addition thereto to be of pure intention. (righteousness) Spiritual righteousness establishes lines of communications with God; lack thereof (immorality) causes a soul's demise upon physical death. God, similarly to almost everything in the universe, is cumulative and progressive. Once the soul is born, it continues it's journey throughout our lives and upon our physical demise it continues with God in eternity or it dies.

God, existing in a spiritual dimension, is cumulative and progressive rather than constant. The survival of God or the expansion of God's intelligence is not dependent upon the addition of souls, it expands and survives with or without them in the same way as our intelligence expands through reasoning and needs no acknowledgment from any outside source.

Project yourself into a scenario whereupon, after your spirit has established a communication link with the Spirit of God, upon your physical demise, all of the data that your spirit has accumulated and stored in your soul is transmitted and received by God into a spiritual dimension which contains any and all of the knowledge and experiences of the universe. You are now a part of God.

I have personally experienced my spirit leaving my body and being united with the Ultimate Supreme Spirit (God?). In 1956 when I was 15 years old I had double pneumonia and I thought that I would surely die. My father took me to a doctor who gave me a penicillin injection and recommended immediate hospitalization. We had no medical insurance or money, so my father took me home to recuperate. I remember the drive home vividly. Every breath was extremely painful and my chest felt as though a great weight was upon it. I watched cars and trucks drive by and I wondered how people could make long term plans when life was so unpredictable.

Several nights later it felt as if my spirit left my body and it experienced being in a place with a gathering of souls or spirits. I felt the greatest peace, tranquility and ecstasy. I felt a rapture that was beyond a person's imagination. I felt as if I was a part of ALL, a part of God. I was mentally communicating and in sync with everyone; many of the prophets of the bible and historical people whom I had read about, some of my deceased acquaintances and relatives. There was no dominant force, no forceful leader. I somehow knew who everyone was. Every thought was interacted with the whole community. I had no questions; it seemed as if everything was revealed and crystal clear. I saw the universe stretched out before us like a vast expanse with spirits engaged in mental interaction like master craftsmen contemplating the creation of a new frontier.

When I told my father who was a preacher of the Lutheran Faith about my experience he dismissed it abruptly and told me that this Supreme Spirit, this God that my spirit had witnessed was not the God of the Bible and he told me to pray for my salvation. We never talked about it afterwards.

Since that time I never really gave it much thought until after the New York World Trade Center tragedy on 9-11-01. I went into deep meditation. I wanted to find an answer as to why/how some misguided individuals could believe that their actions would be rewarded with their soul's eternal life with God. I then had a couple of very similar experiences of my spirit communicating with the Ultimate Spirit. (God, Allah or whatever one desires to call him/it) On the night of 9-11-01 my spiritual experience was very similar to the one that I had 45 years ago at age 15.

About a week later I had another spiritual experience that was in a progression which seemed to last throughout the entire night. My spirit observed the entire history and the evolution of the universe and peoples varying perceptions of God, as if in a fast-forward film. By what I had experienced, I perceived that I had been given a task by The Spirit of God to make an attempt to bring common sense to a belief in God.

Some will say that my experience is nothing but a dream or a vivid imagination but if you discount everything else, there is still rationality, common sense and logic. Religions have originated from an apprehension of the unknown after physical death. We do not need to fear death; it is a new beginning. The Spirit of God has revealed to me that God is not that petty so as to condemn mankind for their varying beliefs. The messenger is of no significance, it is the message that needs to be taken into account and judged for its merits. I believe that I have personally experienced a oneness with The Spirit of God and as surely as I know that God exists, I know that my soul will be with God.

Much of what I have written here is what my spirit has experienced and can be accepted or totally rejected by anyone if they so desire. Let us hope that man will eventually progress intellectually and evolve to a point whereby he can socialize with totally eliminated tendencies for barbarianism and without a fear of punishment from God; this would true enlightenment. By pointing out a flaw and reason for terrorism and violence in the name of religion, my only intent is to make people aware of the futility and intellectual gullibility of societies which have not progressed their beliefs since the Middle Ages. The main purpose is to have open-minded people peruse my writings and offer feedback on how our religious beliefs can to be brought into the 21st Century.

Hope and inspiration rejoices our spirit and gives us a reason for continuing during hopeless times. There is a reason for our existence just like there is a reason for the existence of everything in the universe. Our life on earth is to prepare us and to give us examples of the hereafter. Everything is progressive and accumulative. We are here to accumulate experiences of feelings, the beauty of every organism that surrounds us, the landscape that adds to our perception; then we can begin our next journey.

We should live our life to its fullest. One hundred years from now, almost every single person alive today will have died. Several billion people, wiped off the face of this earth. Our life is but a blip on the radar screen of time. We are the most important person responsible for whether our soul will live or die. God will not judge or condemn us for our imperfections. If our conscience is at peace from having lived a decent clean life to the best of our ability our soul at the point of physical death is further purified and filtered and then received and bonded with God. Here we have to learn how to intertwine with a community; there we can experience anything that the imagination can perceive.

Envision yourself as a spirit that is uninhibited by any resistance or external influences; you can travel to any star or planet instantly, explore the beauty of the universe, and still be in sync with God. As an example: Imagine the most advanced form of Virtual Reality that can access a super-computer and place you in whichever setting you desire; you can play with the animals, be with your loved ones, listen to the greatest opera, stage or musical performances, or simply relax next to a bubbling brook and enjoy the scenery. You feel no pain, despair, heartache, or negative emotions, you are a part of God.

Kurt Kawohl
“I Am A Transcendentalist”

Please peruse my book which can be accessed free at: http://www.transcendentalism.us/

(All profits from the book are donated to charities)
I have posted on numerous boards. The surprising results have been that many who practice logical reasoning have suggested as an answer to religious radicals, that they read my book.

Transcendentalism is the rationality and logic that should be applied to All religions. One needs to keep an open mind and allow the spirit to absorb the logic of who/what God is without being inhibited by what should be considered outdated religious dogma and conditioning that has been a major contributing factor to the causes of terrorism.

http://www.authorzone.com/view_authors.php...p?authorid=1426 (http://www.authorzone.com/view_authors.php?authorid=1426)

[rich]

I am amazed of how similar our thoughts are.

Figured out that you were born in 1941. I wasborn in 1922,
and have been searching again since 2001, though was a practicing Catholic from 1949 till 2000. Some of the thoughts you wrote, I am in agreement with, so though I still go to mass with my wife, I no longer receive The Sacraments, because I do not want to feel it is necessary, at least for myself. agree with your pov on fear.

:D

[vicente]

Hey KK,

You've arrive with quite a narrative.

Although you present ideas that suggest going beyond ancient solutions, what I see is an attempt to access the transcendent dimension though a clinging to those very superstitous concepts,...ie., a concept of a god.

As I mentioned in e-mail, I feel the Atheists Wager addresses the Pascal's theory fairly well, so I'll attempt to bring this present dialogue a bit further.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

Personally I feel you have mixed a belief in a god with the reality Spirit,...not much different than your own charge of others. So, please play with me here and lets begin with an english language definition of god.

(C&P from internet dictionary): god n.
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
6. A very handsome man.
7. A powerful ruler or despot.

For me however, my first definition of god would had been "creator"

I contend that the Source of Us is Causeless, that is, not a force, a creator, a Ruler, Omnipotent, Sovereign of the universe, or a First Cause.

A rational and logical person, in my opinion, would be more inclined to consider Hawkins and Hartle's No Boundary Theory of Quantum Cosmology, that is, "since time loses the characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. Space-Time therefore has no boundary. There was no Big-Bang, no singularity, because their is no time, thus no before and after, no creation, nor creator." In other words, no god. That is, using the accepted definition of what a god is.

If you look at the myriad of synonyms attributed to god, except for the late 2nd Century apology in 1John that god is love, most all of those synonyms express conditions. A force, a creator, a Ruler, Omnipotent, Sovereign of the universe, or a First Cause, are all conditions. In fact, if one honestly looked at christian love, as in their 1Corinthians 13, it is easy to see that all their concepts of love are founded on conditions. Thus, what I intend to show in our coming dialogue, is that the Source of Us is Unconditional, and therefore not a god.

During our dialogue, I would also invite you to cease including Moses, Jesus and Mahommed with Buddha and Buddhism. There is no way, as presented by their stories, that those former ever realized enlightenment, or ever could. Judeao-christian-islamic dogma is a fallacy, and yes, I can prove it. So, if you are to honestly consider the Spiritual purpose that was shown you, that is, to uncover a foundation of unity, such is not going to happen presenting new icing on an old cake, and clinging to the past for our identity.

If we're really going to access unity, the old consciousness, the ancestral solutions, the false, is going to have to be seen for the false it is. As Patrizia Bachelet once said "the essence of religion, which tries to take possession of the hearts of men in different ways, and is insidiously impregnated with the spirit of the past"

As for Buddhism,...it is not a religion about god, but a way of transcendence which sees any belief in a god as an obsticle, ie:
http://buddhism.koolhost.com/buddhaongod.htm
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm
http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/budd-christ.htm


vicente
:)

[Polaris]

(All profits from the book are donated to charities)

Which ones? :)

[kkawohl]

vicente,

He who claims to know the truth is deceiving himself. The pure truth is imperceptible to the mind. That what is beyond the physical demise has been revealed to the spirits of many enlightened persons. How their minds have interpreted it is often influenced by its conditioning.

Apparently Buddha's spirit was not enlightened by the spiritual; but it makes no difference what one believes as long as one lives righteously.

IMO Buddhism and all religions look forward toward a final reward; an end to rebirth or the so-called heavens. Whether one believes in one or the other is a matter of conditioning and is an unimportant matter in Spiritual Transcendentalism and toward attaining the goal. Righteous living is what counts and what will determine the end result.

Buddhism is not necessarily a religion without God although the Buddhism belief system is often considered to be without a personified or conceptualized God. There are extensive and detailed writings in Buddhism about the Unnamable, Infinite, Indescribable, Non-Dualistic Direct Experience, Noumena or whatever one wants to call it.

In accord with my own spiritual enlightenment, practitioners of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Tao, Shinto, Zoroastrian and several other religions are probably closer to being able to achieve spiritual enlightenment than religions that are hindered by belief in a deity conceptualized in a human form. The deity of many religious followers was the result of spiritual interpretations by the minds of their messengers; hence we have various religions. Here also we see the results of something, if factual, that transcended the physical realm. Interpretation by the mind is often faulty, yet to dismiss it as being completely false can also be faulty.

Buddhism was founded in the fourth or fifth century B.C. in northern India by a man known traditionally as Siddhartha Gautama. He left home and a pampered life at the age of 29 to wander as an ascetic, seeking religious insight and a solution to the struggles of human existence. He passed through many trials and practiced extreme self-denial. Finally, while meditating under the Bodhi Tree (“tree of perfect knowledge”), he reached enlightenment and taught his followers about his new spiritual understanding.

Like the Hindus, Gautama believed that existence consisted of reincarnation, a cycle of birth and death. He held that it could be broken only by reaching complete detachment from worldly cares. Then the soul could be released into “nirvana” which is sometimes interpreted as “blowing out”, an indescribable state of total transcendence. Transcendence means superiority, being majestic or a state of being supernatural; Dimensional Beyondness.

Gautama the Buddha was an agnostic and had very little to say about God. He told his disciples, “If there is a God, it is inconceivable that He would be concerned about my day-to-day affairs,” and “there are no gods who can or will help man.” He was correct.


Today Buddhists perform many rituals and practices that have little to do with what Gautama the Buddha taught. He traveled to preach the dharma (sacred truth) and was recognized as the Buddha (enlightened one). After his death his followers continued to develop doctrine and practice, which came to center on the Three Jewels: the dharma (the sacred teachings of Buddhism), the Sangha (the community of followers, which now includes nuns, monks, and laity), and the Buddha.

Numerous Buddhist sects have emerged and there are various concepts in Buddhism. Members of the Mahayana tradition conceive of Buddha as an eternal being to whom prayers can be made; other Buddhas are revered as well, adding a polytheistic dimension to the religion. Numerous sects have developed from the Mahayana tradition, which has been influential in China, Korea, and Japan.

Another broad tradition, variously called Vajrayana (Diamond Vehicle), Mantrayana (Vehicle of the Mantra), or Tantric Buddhism, offers a quicker, more demanding way to achieve nirvana. Because of its level of challenge—enabling one to reach enlightenment in one lifetime—it requires the guidance of a spiritual leader. It is most prominent in Tibet and Mongolia.

Zen Buddhism encourages individuals to seek the Buddha nature within themselves and to practice a disciplined form of sitting meditation in order to reach satori—spiritual enlightenment.

After the Buddha died at about 5oo B.C. people attempted to reach nirvana, by achieving enlightenment, on their own. During the first century B.C. claims were made that the Buddha had reappeared in human form and statues appeared in India. As in Christianity and Hinduism, there was a yearning for humanized religion and it was thereby integrated into religion.

All beliefs originated thousands of years ago through the supposed interpretations of someone's spirit through meditation. One's spirit can at times connect with the Supreme Spirit which is called by many names, to receive inspiration. All religions need to be updated to reflect logic and rationality. Religions must realize that a deity (God) did not create the universe but guided its development like a Master Planner. Spiritual Existence in the spiritual realm or dimension EXISTS but it in no way interferes in our physical lives.

Enlightenment is a state of intellectual or spiritual awareness. Spiritual awareness is consciousness of the spirit world, incorporeal; of or pertaining to the spirit or soul and the supernatural. The “soul” is just another word for “spirit” though some people have mistakenly referred to it as having a supernatural origin; though the spirit’s transcendence or being “reborn” upon a physical death has been accepted by many religions. But does it really matter whether one is right or wrong about the spirit or a spiritual existence, (God) during our lifetime? Righteous living (karma) will determine the continuity of the spirit.

Most religions become the victim of their own internal politics and dogmas and have in many ways become something other than a spirituality.

My spiritual enlightenment has revealed to me that our life on earth is to prepare us and to give us examples of the spiritual continuity. Everything is progressive and accumulative. We are here to accumulate experiences of feelings, the beauty of every organism that surrounds us, the landscape that adds to our perception; then we can begin our next journey.

Kurt
http://transcendentalism.us

[DavidS]

Hi Kurt and vicente -

I appreciate both of your world-views and associated sign-ificant 'points'.

Kurt, I too, think that one cannot get to the 'there' you speak of without a clear 'conscience' (not that one never-ever betrayed/s it, but that one consciously recognizes, differentiates and values and seeks to think-feel-n-act act in ways what are 'benign' in (creative) effect from those that are not so). However, there are different kinds of 'value', and thus different kinds of 'clarity', depending on the degree to which one subscribes to bio-physicial-communal "well being" as either a 'necessary' or an 'high-falluting' "good" - as I think is illustrated by the following piece from one of David Hawkins' books (I can't remember which one as I put all of the quoteable quotes I transcribed as I read the three of them into the same document).

It also touches on the nature of the historical Eastern-Western 'divide', I think rather insightfully, in ways which I hope you think-n-feel add to the conversation.

David
===========
Q: In Asia and India, enlightenment as a goal and respected state has a long history. In the West, the historical recognition is that of sainthood. What is the relationship between the two conditions? Are they different?

A: The culture of Asia is much older than that of the Western world. In the ancient cultures, great importance was given to spiritual realization, and spiritual knowledge of great authenticity was available form ancient times, as evidenced by the vedas and the Bhagavad Gita. Inquiry into spiritual truth, therefore, had a long tradition. In Eastern cultures, the awareness that Divinity was innately present within all mankind is evidenced by the custom, even to the present day, of people putting their hands in a prayerful position when they meet and bowing to each other.

In those cultures, the spiritual traditions and teachings were revalidated throughout the ages by a succession of gurus who reaffirmed that the ultimate fulfillment of man's spiritual potential was that of enlightenment. It was also accepted by the culture that divinity accounted for and was the source of all life.

In those cultures, individuals who had a propensity for spiritual dedication has a traditional role and lifestyle to follow. Their endeavors were seen as fulfilling and revitalizing the truth that the existence of Self as the divine source in its absoluteness and infinite expression is the totality of all Creation. Thus, the goal of the spiritual devotee, and that implied by society, were not in conflict, and the enlightened masters validated the very basis of the Eastern culture. Society then tended to support those of advanced spiritual awareness and granted them the privilege of being excused from the ordinary duties associated with material survival or worldly success. Those designated as holy men were revered ad thus had a special niche in society as teachers.

When Buddha appeared in approximately 500 BC, be was supported by a culture that was capable of recognizing enlightenment so that he was not in conflict with the then-existent culture. Although he may perhaps have been considered a new great teacher, the teachings and accepted treasures of wisdom and truth already existed.

By contrast, the Western world was far behind in the advancement of consciousness. The culture was pagan and preoccupied with nature deities, magic, and nature worship. The Greek, Roman, Germanic and Hebraic traditions included pantheons of gods who were given anthropomorphic characteristics so that, in the end, they actually had the same feelings as humans but on a broader scale. In all these primitive versions, God was always seen as 'elsewhere'. The anthropomorphic God, however, was seen as taking direct action for better or worse in human affairs.

Whether greater wisdom existed before recorded history was information probably lost in the great fire of the library of Alexandria, which had included all the recorded wisdom of the ancient world. In native cultures around the world, spiritualism prevailed but there was no tradition of enlightenment. There was, however, the shared truth of the omnipresence and divinity of the Great Spirit as God. Thus, both the Native American cultures and pre-Sumarian culture, as well as that of the Hebrews, were monotheistic as was the belief in Mazda, the god of Mesopotamian culture as expressed through Zoroaster.

Into this preexistent culture outside the Far East appeared Jesus Christ, whose coming had been foretold by prophecy. Unlike Buddha and Krishna, his teachings were in conflict with the then-prevailing culture, and the ensuing conflict with the religious establishment resulted in his untimely death at an early age.

Although not well received by the culture of his birthplace, Jesus' teachings, via the disciples and Greeks, spread rapidly to the Greco-Roman world and then across the cultures of Europe. The purity of the teachings remained relatively undefiled for the first four hundred years but then progressively declined, especially after the Nicene Council.

In the meantime, the Arab world had embraced Islam and a power struggle between Islam and Christianity ensued, with major political consequences for all society. [Mesays: Not just 'political'!] The focus of organized religion, however, became diverted into rivalry between different cultures. The religious goals of the individual were focused primarily on that of avoiding sin, penance for sin, and the possibility of reaching heaven in an afterlife. These were in accord with the branch of Buddhism called 'Pureland' [Never heard of it meself.] which also had the more modest goal of reaching heaven rather than the likelihood of becoming enlightened in this lifetime. Sainthood resulted from purification of the personality in Islam, Christianity, and Pureland Buddhism. This was in accord with the perception that enlightenment itself was a more advanced stage and reachable only from the higher levels of spirituality, such as those that existed in heaven. There was thus the agreement that the worldly life and its intrinsic negativity precluded the likelihood of reaching enlightenment during an earthly lifetime.

This consideration is also expressed in the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna says that enlightenment is rare because it is chosen only by a few out of many thousands, and even of those who choose it as a goal, very few accomplish the goal. Consequently, in Eastern religions, the attainment of enlightenment was said to take many life cycles, and the best the average seeker could accomplish was the accumulation of good karma which ripened into the final earthly lifetime when enlightenment occurred, bringing with it the finality and cessation of rebirth.

The spiritual seekers who made progress during this lifetime were often viewed as saints in all religions, and some of advanced consciousness were termed mystics by Christianity. The mystics, however, were often suspect by the Church and were considered as possibly heretical by the establishment. This view prevails today, ven in certain fundamentalist Christian sects that view the Buddha, for example as 'possessed by a demon'. [Text omitted ...]

Q: What differentiates these seemingly different spiritual goals?

A: The difference is very basic and critical for the seeker of enlightenment to know. A religion primarily addresses the realm of duality whereas enlightenment addresses nonduality. This strict path to enlightenment says that inasmuch as duality is illusion, there is no point in trying to perfect it. Therefore, the ego is to be transcended and seen for the illusion that it is. 'Good personhood' is laudable, but it does not of itself result in enlightenment. The possibility of reaching enlightenment is based on advanced understanding of the nature of consciousness itself.

Q: Is there an observable difference between the saint and the sage?

A: Yes, that may be so. The way of spiritual purification and perfection will lead to a personality that is seen as more 'saintly' or pure. In contrast, the enlightened sage has no interest in either the body or the personality and may therefore seem to the ordinary person to be more gruff or even unkempt.

Nisargadatta Maharaj (consciousness level over 700), for example, smoked endless Indian cigarettes, pounded on the table when he got excited, and exhibited his ordinary personality. A Zen master can be very abrupt and brisk; however, the love is the same in all but is merely expressed differently.

Q: Is perfecting the body and personality then a waste of time?

A: It is a diversion and an error of emphasis. The body is the product of nature and what it does is really of no interest. The mind and personality are products of social milieu, family influence, and cultural programming. A refined and cultured person is an agreeable and valuable social asset, but it is not the Self. As one approaches enlightenment, it becomes apparent that the self is not the Self, although included in it.

Q: Is one spiritual path better than another?

A: There are two ways to travel – either a direct route to one's destination, or the leisurely trip that investigates the countryside and visits all the tourist attractions. Most spiritual seekers are on the leisurely path, even if they don't realize it. This, however, is undoubtedly the best way for many people. It is neither wrong nor a waste of time but merely the path that works best for them.

In reality, time is merely an illusion and an appearance. No 'time' is really wasted once one has chosen the spiritual goal. Actually, it makes no difference in the end whether enlightenment takes a thousand lifetimes or one. In the end, its all the same.

Q: Are you saying, then, that the way through traditional religion is a slow path and the one through the understanding of consciousness is faster?

A: Again, it is a matter of choice, practicality, and inspiration.

[vicente]

KK,...just because you and established religions cannot accept that the truth can be understood, does not mean it cannot. I agree, those who know do not gnow. The intent of my dialogue here is shine light on what you gnow through your authenic experience, and the known which you added to it, to make it more palatable to you that you think you are. I'd like to hear the message Spirit shared with you, not the one interpreted through your religious upbringing.

So open up KK,...you're a Leo,...if anyone can open to honesty, it is surely you. Let's let go of the speculations and trying to present our ancestors solutions in a more new agey way. As Eckhard Tolle says in the opening of his narrative 'The Power of Now', "I draw your attention to what is false in you. I speak of the nature of human unconsciousness and dysfunction, for unless you learn to recognize the false as the false, as not you, there is no lasting transformation, and you will always end up being drawn back into illusion. That is how the false perpetuates itself."

As for the Buddha's, on the contrary,...Buddha was Enlightened through the Spiritual,...it is those who cling to the fiction of the Jews, christians and muslims who cannot realize Enlightenment,...its impossible,...until they Let Go of that which they cling to for their idenity.

As for Buddhism,...this following Vajrayana poem was written by a E'Being,...within it is the only path to Enlightenment. It is the path of Letting Go. The Judeao-christian-muslim religions are about attachment, not Letting Go.

1.Is space anywhere supported? Upon what does it rest?
Like space, Mahamudra is dependant upon nothing;
Relax and settle in the continuum of unalloyed purity,
And, your bonds loosening, release is certain.

2.Gazing intently into the empty sky, vision ceases;
Likewise, when mind gazes into mind itself,
The train of discursive and conceptual thought ends
And supreme enlightenment is gained.

3.Like the morning mist that dissolves into thin air,
Going nowhere but ceasing to be,
Waves of conceptualization, all the mind's creation, dissolve,
When you behold your mind's true nature.

4.Pure space has neither colour nor shape
And it cannot be stained either black or white;
So also, mind's essence is beyond both colour and shape
And it cannot be sullied by black or white deeds.

5.The darkness of a thousand aeons is powerless
To dim the crystal clarity of the sun's heart;
And likewise, aeons of samsara have no power
To veil the clear light of the mind's essence.

6.Although space has been designated "empty",
In reality it is inexpressible;
Although the nature of mind is called "clear light",
Its every ascription is baseless verbal fiction.

7.The mind's original nature is like space;
It pervades and embraces all things under the sun.

8.Be still and stay relaxed in genuine ease,
Be quiet and let sound reverberate as an echo,
Keep your mind silent and watch the ending of all worlds.

9.The body is essentially empty like the stem of a reed,
And the mind, like pure space, utterly transcends
the world of thought:
Relax into your intrinsic nature with neither abandon nor control -
Mind with no objective is Mahamudra -
And, with practice perfected, supreme enlightenment is gained.

10..The clear light of Mahamudra cannot be revealed
By the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises
Of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka;
The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals.

11.By harbouring rigid precepts the true samaya is impaired,
But with cessation of mental activity all fixed notions subside;
When the swell of the ocean is at one with its peaceful depths,
When mind never strays from indeterminate, non-conceptual truth,
The unbroken samaya is a lamp lit in spiritual darkness.

12.Free of intellectual conceits, disavowing dogmatic principles,
The truth of every school and scripture is revealed.
Absorbed in Mahamudra, you are free from the prison of samsara;
Poised in Mahamudra, guilt and negativity are consumed;
And as master of Mahamudra you are the light of the Doctrine.

13.The fool in his ignorance, disdaining Mahamudra,
Knows nothing but struggle in the flood of samsara.
Have compassion for those who suffer constant anxiety!
Sick of unrelenting pain and desiring release, adhere to a master,
For when his blessing touches your heart, the mind is liberated.

14.KYE HO! Listen with joy!
Investment in samsara is futile; it is the cause of every anxiety.
Since worldly involvement is pointless, seek the heart of reality!

15.In the transcending of mind's dualities is Supreme vision;
In a still and silent mind is Supreme Meditation;
In spontaneity is Supreme Activity;
And when all hopes and fears have died, the Goal is reached.

16.Beyond all mental images the mind is naturally clear:
Follow no path to follow the path of the Buddhas;
Employ no technique to gain supreme enlightenment.

17.KYE MA! Listen with sympathy!
With insight into your sorry worldly predicament,
Realising that nothing can last, that all is as dreamlike illusion,
Meaningless illusion provoking frustration and boredom,
Turn around and abandon your mundane pursuits.

18.Cut away involvement with your homeland and friends
And meditate alone in a forest or mountain retreat;
Exist there in a state of non-meditation
And attaining no-attainment, you attain Mahamudra.

19.A tree spreads its branches and puts forth leaves,
But when its root is cut its foliage withers;
So too, when the root of the mind is severed,
The branches of the tree of samsara die.

20.A single lamp dispels the darkness of a thousand aeons;
Likewise, a single flash of the mind's clear light
Erases aeons of karmic conditioning and spiritual blindness.

21.KYE HO! Listen with joy!
The truth beyond mind cannot be grasped by any faculty of mind;
The meaning of non-action cannot be understood in compulsive activity;
To realise the meaning of non-action and beyond mind,
Cut the mind at its root and rest in naked awareness.

22.Allow the muddy waters of mental activity to clear;
Refrain from both positive and negative projection -
leave appearances alone:
The phenomenal world, without addition or subtraction, is Mahamudra.

23.The unborn omnipresent base dissolves your impulsions and delusions:
Do not be conceited or calculating but rest in the unborn essence
And let all conceptions of yourself and the universe melt away.

24.The highest vision opens every gate;
The highest meditation plumbs the infinite depths;
The highest activity is ungoverned yet decisive;
And the highest goal is ordinary being devoid of hope and fear.

25.At first your karma is like a river falling through a gorge;
In mid-course it flows like a gently meandering River Ganga;
And finally, as a river becomes one with the ocean,
It ends in consummation like the meeting of mother and son.

26.If the mind is dull and you are unable to practice these instructions,
Retaining essential breath and expelling the sap of awareness,
Practising fixed gazes - methods of focussing the mind,
Discipline yourself until the state of total awareness abides.

27.When serving a karmamudra, the pure awareness
of bliss and emptiness will arise:
Composed in a blessed union of insight and means,
Slowly send down, retain and draw back up the bodhichitta,
And conducting it to the source, saturate the entire body.
But only if lust and attachment are absent will that awareness arise.

28.Then gaining long-life and eternal youth, waxing like the moon,
Radiant and clear, with the strength of a lion,
You will quickly gain mundane power and suprem enlightenment.
May this pith instruction in Mahamudra
Remain in the hearts of fortunate beings.

Tilopa, circa 988-1069CE

Vicente
:)

[vicente]

I agree David,...there are many paths,...however, if you look at it honestly, before Enlightenment, all paths dissolve.
First Century gnosis said " when you can disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments (beLIEfs), and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then you will no longer be afraid".

From my own observations there is nothing to discover, especially through religious treatises, but only to uncover,...to uncover all the barriers within ourselfs we have built that obscure the authentic us.

It's about Letting Go. As Peter Russell says:
http://www.peterussell.com/LGN/JustLGo.html

vicente
:)

[Polaris]

Just a general observation here. It seems (and I could be wrong since there's A LOT of text in this thread to peruse) much of this thread is centered around the goal of enlightenment, via whatever path one choose to travel, and what enlightenment means to such an individual.



If enlightenment is your goal you will be sorely disappointed. If anything is to be "goal" then it should be succeeding at taking the next step on your journey correctly.

Nobody here is enlightened.

No offense intended.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 22 2003, 02:11 PM
Nobody here is enlightened.

This presumes that you, at least, are enlightened enough to 'see' or 'know' that.

No offense intended.
None at all taken. :lol:

[kkawohl]

rich,

All religions have the same goal and all who live righteously will have their souls united with the Spiritual Reality called God.

Kurt

[kkawohl]

Originally posted by DavidS+Jul 23 2003, 04:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Jul 23 2003, 04:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Polaris@Jul 22 2003, 02:11 PM
Nobody here is enlightened.

This presumes that you, at least, are enlightened enough to 'see' or 'know' that.

No offense intended.
None at all taken. :lol: [/b][/quote]
David,

GOOD ANSWER.

[kkawohl]

vicente,

Beautiful poem.

After the Buddha died at about 5oo B.C. people attempted to reach nirvana, by achieving enlightenment, on their own. During the first century B.C. claims were made that the Buddha had reappeared in human form and statues appeared in India. As in Christianity and Hinduism, there was a yearning for humanized religion and it was thereby integrated into religion.

Where when and why did the concept arise that a person will continue to be born and die and suffer until he/she accepts the precepts of Buddhism and strives to achieve enlightenment to break the cycle and enter Nirvana? The reason I differ is due to my personal enlightenment and experience of Nirvana which was communicated to my spirit via a spirit of Nirvana. I was made aware that when our soul or spirit leaves our body it is either transferred directly to Nirvana, or it ceases it's existence.

My understanding is that Nirvana is a spiritual state which can not be permanently achieved or maintained by the spirit as long as the spirit is joined or connected to the body.

In Vedhik literature, there is a recurring theme of three types of forms:

the outer - gross, physical, material - body (sthuula dheha),
the subtle, inner - astral, subconscious - body (suukshma dheha), and
the innermost and final form, the causal body (kaarana dheha), which is the subtlest manifested state.
We must try to separate and understand the scope of the three levels.
These three forms can be viewed as

the body level;
the psychosomatic level of the intellect, experience locked into subconscious, memories, and ego; and
the causal vital-force (praanik) level, which exists in all the three states: waking, dream and deep sleep.
The individual or microscopic aspect of existence, at the body/waking level (involved with Karma), is called Vishva; the subtler astral body at the dream level is called Thaijas; and the causal (deep-sleep/unmanifest) life level is called Praajna. Aathma is the permanent feature of all these three states, and yet, it is apart and transcends the three into the transcendental super-conscious state (Thureeya), where, in an enlightened person in samaadhi, Aathma experiences Parabrahmam (the supreme Absolute Reality) directly. Aathma is the enjoyer of the three "lower" states mentioned above.

Each individual conscious entity is also linked to the cosmic level: the collective macrocosmic level of all physical bodies (vishvas) is called Viraat; the sum total of all subtle bodies is called Hiranyagarbha, and the sum total of all causal bodies (Praajna) is called Eeshvara. The wakeful state (jagratha avastha) is the last state of evolution of the universe, but it is the first state in the order of involution. When we, as individual conscious entities, link ourselves with the cosmic Divine level of these three forms, we align ourselves with the respective causes and attain progressive emancipation from the endless cycle of birth and death (krama mukthi).

After death, the physical body dies, the subtle and casual bodies survive and when a new physical body is given, your subtle and casual bodies start from where you left off. That is why people can sometimes recollect their previous lives. Check the reincarnation page I mentioned in my last post, there are accounts of actual people remembering their previous lives.

-------------
In Vedhik literature, there is a recurring theme of three types of forms:

My disparity is with the three types of forms in the Vedhik literature:
the outer - gross, physical, material - body (sthuula dheha),
the subtle, inner - astral, subconscious - body (suukshma dheha), and
the innermost and final form, the causal body (kaarana dheha), which is the subtlest manifested state.

If each individual conscious entity is also linked to the cosmic level, the collective macrocosmic level of all physical bodies, they are applicable to the physical but not to the spiritual dimension.

Any and all laws of nature or of the physical sense are not applicable to the spiritual realm.

I perused the reincarnation postings on the Internet pertaining to accounts of people remembering their previous lives. My assessment thereof is that when people desire attention or wish to be elevated from their meager surroundings, the subconscious mind can project visions, the same as the prophets or so-called Holy Men physically claiming to having conferred with God; Self hypnosis is also a feasible explanation. The subconscious mental process sometimes projects images to the conscious forefront of the mind; These images can at times be subconsciously transmitted to another individual, though being contingent on the reception capabilities of the receiver. Evidence of this has been shown by closely related persons, such as between mother and child or twins.

In accord with my personal experiences , our spirit is the only one capable of receiving inspiration or capable of establishing lines of communication with the Spirit of God. Our "deserving" spirit or soul, at a point of physical imminent death, enters the spiritual realm to be with the Supreme Spirit, (God, or whatever one desires to call him/it) which is a spiritual collective society of souls or spirits, a government, consisting of Pure Intelligence, Pure Logic, the Ultimate or Supreme Spirit.

Any soul or spirit, upon a person's physical death, that does not bond or is not transmitted by us and received by The Supreme Spirit, ceases to exist. I am in agreement with most other aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism; their philosophy prepares our spirit or soul to be deserving of joining with the Supreme Spirit (God).

Kurt

[vicente]

Polaris, I agree that if enlightenment is ones goal, then enlightenment is impossible. I disagree however, that this thread is centered around such a goal.

For me, I like how UG Krishnamurti put it,..."the goal, which you have invented, is responsible for your search. As long as the goal is there, so long will the search continue".

The idea of seek and you will find, is fiction. The nature of Spirit, as my old acquaintence John Davies would say, is that the universe rearranges itself to accomodate your picture of reality. That is to say, if one is fascinated with what one thinks they don't have, Spirit will bring them more of those things they are fascinated with, such as experiences of lack. The real nature of Spirit is seek and you will never find.

To seek implies lack, however, there is no lack. We are already E'Beings, in that our blueprint, albeit thickly cloaked by beLIEfs, is very much aware of our state of Enlightenment.

As the comment, "Nobody here is enlightened", was standing alone in your post, I'd have to agree with David that you are presuming to be enlightened enough to make such a statement, which, considering all the above text in this thread, is not very fair.

vicente
:)

[vicente]

KK,...you're jumping from Vajra to Vedic Literature as if they are somehow compatible,...they are as different as Stillness and noise.

However, what I'd like to discuss firstly is where you get the following notion: "All religions have the same goal and all who live righteously will have their souls united with the Spiritual Reality called God". Why do you use the term "god" so often?

Buddhism or Vajrayana does not, from my understanding, aim at being united with a god,...this is mostly a Western concept which has its roots in mathematics. This is to say, Western though identifies with 1, or Oneness,...whereas in the Vajra path, often described as Kagyu, or the 4th Way, there is an acceptence of Zero,...not nothing, but the fulcrum upon which the One and Duality effects its motion.

In my own 'continuum of awakenings', I've uncovered that we become oblivious to the reverse flow of forward moving things, that is, we cease coming back into ourselfs, simultaneously, as we go out,...and as such, we perceive an object-ive world, instead of Wholeness.

One of my favorite ways to describe this is to ask you to visualize a keyhole for a moment; one of those slotted holes that can be peeped through, like in older colonial type homes. Now,...describe that hole.

It may be perceived as having the shape of a circle with a rectangle whose width is smaller than the diameter of the circle projecting from the bottom; or maybe that the hole is surrounded by a brass plate which is attached to a door, which is attached to a wall, etc. Perhaps we could look through the hole and see what's on the other side. But that's not describing the hole; that's describing what's around or through the hole. This is how most of us are media-ted to perceive our own wholeness,...by what's around it.

However, as we engage more and more with coming back into ourselfs as we go out, thus realizing the harmonic interchange, or zero points, both between and on the closure points of duality, there is an observation that Wholeness is not a union of opposites, but the dissolution of opposites. It is then when we no longer 'see' a flower, but we are the flower,...no separation between the two, nor a becoming of One.

That baffled me for sometime,...that there is no Oneness in Wholeness. To have One there must be a many, just like to have a center there must be an edge, or to have a here there must be a there.

Its during those moments, for me, that my physical presence comes alive, because a fuller spectrumed consciousness is driving the vehicle, not the various attachments to the past and learned beliefs.

For a concluding note,...I am not interested in 'getting out', but to uncover more and more of the Love than I am. Wholeness is aligned more with unlearning, than learning. Thus, seeking ways to unify religions is meaningless to Wholeness,...bringing a thousand falses together will only thicken the veils that smother Love.

Vicente
:)

[kkawohl]

Vicente,

Apparently you somehow overlooked some of my previous postings.

When I stated that all religions have the same goal it means that Buddhism and all religions look forward toward a final reward; an end to rebirth or the so-called heavens. Whether one believes in one or the other is a matter of conditioning and is an unimportant matter in Spiritual Transcendentalism and toward attaining the goal. Righteous living is what counts and what will determine the end result.

You stated, “Buddhism or Vajrayana does not, from my understanding, aim at being united with a god,...this is mostly a Western concept which has its roots in mathematics.”

Buddhism is not necessarily a religion without God although the Buddhism belief system is often considered to be without a personified or conceptualized God. There are extensive and detailed writings in Buddhism about the Unnamable, Infinite, Indescribable, Non-Dualistic Direct Experience, Noumena or whatever one wants to call it.

Vajrayana refers to the 3rd form of Buddhism, after Theravada & Mahayana also known as Tantric Buddhism. The main claim of Vajrayana is that it enables a person to reach nirvana in a single lifetime. Nirvana is often considered as the heavenly state that exists beyond the cycle of reincarnation, an end to karmic suffering. It is also means being “blown out” which is often misinterpreted as the final end. “Blown out” refers only to the lower human principles, not entitative annihilation.

God can be considered nirvana, spiritual existence or whatever one constitutes it to be.

Kurt

[...]

..enlightenment always is, despite what you think it is...

[vicente]

KK,...I certainly agree with much of what you say; it is a treat to dialogue with someone who openly considers the topic at hand, what is often said, one whom does their homework.

As mentioned previously, I surely look forward to hearing about your authentic spiritual experiences, yet before we get into what is "beyond the cycle", beyond the holographic projection on the Cube, I'd like to arrive at some argeement with you regarding some of these semantics being used, especially this term "god". For me, and those Vajrayanists whom gone before me, I would not consider god as nirvana nor spiritual existence.

What I would like, is to hear from you regarding why you plug-in the word god to expound on your direct experiences. In other words, if you could, retrive a full, accepted definition of god from a dictionary, and share why you feel those definitions match, in any way, your direct experiences.

For me,...although this forum is graciously provided by Buddhist gentleman living in Thailand,...I myself live in a mostly christian environment, so therefore, I often attempt to clarify my point of view within Western cultures illusions.

Although Christians see their God as a loving Father, the Creating Patriarch of their Bible is in truth, an anti-female sufferage, pro-slavery, murderous, vacillant, petty, racist God. And now, if I may, I will expound on that last sentence.

The concept of a ‘made’ woman and ‘created’ man repeats over and over in Christian literature. The Son of the Elohim took the daughters of men as they chose. Gen 6:2; or the women’s husband shall rule over her, Gen 3:16. The didactics are not limited to the Old Law and the impositions of the God of Jacob, Ephesians 5:22 instructs wives shall submit to their husbands; or 1Cor11:9, women were made for man. Again in Col 3:18 and Titus 2:11-12, let women learn in silence and be completely submissive; for no woman shall be permitted to teach or have authority over men. In the Malleus Maleficarum, a 15th Century Catholic text, summed up women rather interestingly by saying women being formed from man’s rib, are only imperfect animals, whereas man belongs to the privilege sex from whose midst Christ emerged. And to give equal time to the Protestants, Martin Luther in the 16th Century said that girls begin to talk and to stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops.

Why do today's roughly 500 million Christian women concede to this loathsomeness towards them by the Bible and Christian leadership? Do they honestly feel one can play ‘Pick-n-Chose’ by saying yes, I like that verse, its true, or no, that verse is no longer relevant; or do they think they can change God for God/Goddess, and somehow that will make the factual reality of their religion go away? A reality which demands its adherents to be attached to beliefs through faith, thus the non-acceptance of Life. Yet if they would simply allow the Bible to speak for itself, they would clearly recognize, as the Theologian and Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote in the 3rd Century, that their Bible, advances that, every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.

Why do people engage in such an absurdity as Christianity? We know how Christianity got its deep grip on society; the roots of this hoax was well grounded by the 6th Century. Theodosian Law of the 4th Century condemned all non-Christians, thus promoting ardent persecutions of Free-Thinkers, whose then confiscated property enriched the new Church. Then the hateful reign of Justinian, which barred anyone outside of correct Christian belief from civil service and who’s forced baptisms actually smoothed the way for the establishment of Islam. But what keeps Christians ignorant? What is the expected value they hope to realize by the acceptance of this belief through faith? My view is because of fear, their fear of death; is pacified with an explanation of heaven. Their fear of insecurity; reduced through belief that the meek will inherit the earth. Their fear of not being good enough; tranquilized by the promise of salvation. Yet Christianity offers no wisdom about Reality, or how to trigger direct experience with the Source of who we are.

There is indeed a Source, which will become clear through other posts herewithin, however, what is being presented in this post is what Source is not, that is, let's play Neti-Neti. Source is not a God of death, nor would prescribe death for cursing one’s parents, Lev 20:9; death for adultery, Lev 20:10; death for blasphemy, Lev 24:16, death if the tokens of virginity could not be found at the time of marriage, Deut 22:20; or death to Anamias and Sapphira for not tithing correctly, Acts 5:1-10. Neither is Source interested in the institution of slavery, like being subject to your master with all fear, 1Peter 2:18; obey your masters in all things, Col 2:22; slaves both male and female, thou shalt have, they shall be of the heathens around you, Lev 25:44; slaves shall be submissive to their masters and please them in all things; Titus 2:19.

The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God is a supernatural concept invented by our ancestors. Simply looking at the progressive names for God gives an idea how this pernicious myth developed. The first God was Elohim, a plural word, meaning Gods. It was used roughly 2570 times. For example, Elohim said, let us make man in our image, Gen 1:26; Elohim said, behold, man has become one of us, Gen 3:22; let us go down and confound them, Gen 11:17; who will go for us, Isa 6:8. The singular of Elohim, which is El or Eloah, appears 226 and 57 times. The first time a singular God is revealed in the Bible is Exo 6:2-8.

Of course, theologian Apologist came up with many reasons why God is pluralized, especially bringing attention to singular verbs that are close by. What they seldom care to share is that, what Christians call the Old Testament, was oral tradition until the 2rd Century CE and wasn’t completed or added to the Canon of the Bible till the 10th Century CE during the Church sponsored Dark Ages. In other words, who made those singular verbs singular?

Truth is not invented, it’s uncovered. The invention of god is not true, if it was, it would have been uncovered. Instead, because it is not true, their god can only be defined through faith. However, like christian love, the christian god is founded on conditions. Their god is a creator; yet Source does not create. Creation is an illusion that perceives itself as separate from Reality. No god is required for the universe to exist; contemporary quantum physics has shown that Natural Laws are enough.

Since god, as you shall see, is one of the last barriers to awareness and obstacle to peace, that is to say, the Last Emancipation, it is imperative that this dysfunctional myth fade away on some walls in local museums. To realize that reality quickly, the first step is to divest religions words from our vocabulary. Religion uses words to disempower and distract us from the Now, but we can cease feeding that distraction and thus disempowering ourselfs to those words. Faith, and the words associated with faith, have dense vibrational patterns that compress our electromagnetic fields, consequently suppressing our direct interaction with Source and Spirit. Remember, every person we encounter is a reflection of our own vibrational pattern. By using religions words, we maintain a barrier through which our Life Force is filtered, like through a check valve, so that Source is not reflected, or able to flow, back to us, because it was not given to begin with.

The realization of the Last Emancipation is this:
Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

typingtyping

[kkawohl]

Vicente,

God can not be adequately described in a dictionary, their designates are what is normally acceptable to the general populous. God can be considered nirvana, spiritual existence or whatever one constitutes it to be. Throughout several millennia evidence has been presented that The Spirit (let’s call it God) has interacted with our spirit; (not physically) this interaction was interpreted accordingly and written in the Torah, Bible, Qur'an, etc., but this interaction has often been misinterpreted as his messengers having physically heard, spoken to or having seen God. Also due to superstitions and conditioning, the mind interpreted the spiritual interaction accordingly. These interpretations sufficed in helping the societies of that time period to sometimes amend their wicked ways and live righteously. The mission of The Spirit was accomplished successfully.

Today as mankind eventually eliminates superstitious beliefs, messages from The Spirit are interpreted along lines that are acceptable to today’s society. We should not fault or condemn past or various religious beliefs, such as they ALL also served their purpose. Therefore your statement, “Since god, as you shall see, is one of the last barriers to awareness and obstacle to peace, that is to say, the Last Emancipation, it is imperative that this dysfunctional myth fade away on some walls in local museums” is counterproductive and prejudicial which any enlightened individual would contradict.

You also stated, “For me, and those Vajrayanists who have gone before me, I would not consider god as nirvana nor spiritual existence.” The ultimate reality is that if that is what works for you, great, but it really makes no difference what your or anyone’s belief system is. The productivity of our life will determine the continuity of the spirit.

Some Vajrayanists and believers of Buddhism, similarly to Christians who have seen the reincarnation of Christ, claim that “When our great Buddha - The patron of all the adepts, the reformer and codifier of the occult system, reached first Nirvana on earth, he became a Planetary Spirit; I.e - his spirit could at one and the same time rove the interstellar spaces in full consciousness and continue at will on Earth in his original and individual body.

In this 21st Century most religious beliefs are still based on superstitions and are as antiquated as in several millennia past. When peoples' concepts are flawed, corrections, truth, logic and common sense thereof must eventually prevail. In the USA there are 75 Buddhist denominations. All religious writings are by fallible men. ALL religions have the same goal.

Einstein felt that "God" may very well be the "energy" that is in all matter and energy, that cannot be separated from matter/energy. I submit that God is the pure energy and pure spiritual intellect of the spiritual realm.

The law of Karma, being a natural law of cause and effect, governs all that is connected with the physical, and determines the continuity and ultimate survival of the spirit. The karma, the individual actions of a person dictates the consequences and survival of the spirit.

Convince yourself. Spiritual meditation whereby all physical senses are subdued can result in spiritual transcendence and enlightenment. You can not see the wind, but you can feel its power. You can not see the spiritual but you can feel the enlightenment of the spirit and you will recognize the truth.

Namaste,
Kurt
http://transcendentalism.us

[vicente]

KK,...I fully disagree. Although you may describe god as nirvana, spiritual existence or whatever you constitute such a concept to be, I don't.

I won't agrue that Spirit has interacted with our perceived spirits, but to say "let's call that god", I will not.

Words point to certain things,...and the term god does not point to anything real. Thus, I ask again, why are you not flowing with Spirit, and the experiences you had, but instead putting your own predispositions on the nature of the river and your relationship to it?

If we are to Birth Human Beingness,...if we are to eliminate superstitious beLIEfs, why are you clinging to the beLIEfs of those superstitions? On the contrary,...it is not counterproductive and pre-judical to eject Judeao-Christian-Muslem falacies from Gaia,...on the otherhand, it would be counterproductive and prejudical to embrace their delusions, and seek, as you are, to correct them through some mad scheme to unify the their many falsities, as if such will present something real.

Snapping at me that "belief systems make no difference" is interesting, yet you seem to fail to notice that I am not advocating a belief system,...however you are. A beLIEf in a god.

So, as you don't seem ready yet to address your concepts of god, lets discuss beliefs.

be·lief n. from ME bileve, v, influenced by bileven\gelfan\leubh, to hold dear/to make palatable.
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing confidence in another without proof that one is right in doing so.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something not susceptable to validation.
3.Something believed or unquestioningly accepted as true in the absence of reason, especially a particular ideology accepted by a group of persons.
4.a religious tenet or tenets.

In other words:
belief is always limiting
beliefs suppress, deny, disempower, disconnect
belief always keep us unfulfilled
belief begins when reason ends
belief is in something else
belief is a barrier to Love
belief is a substitute for perceived incompleteness
beliefs are negative emotional investments
belief produces unnatural thought
belief always expects
belief implies doubt
belief is an attachment to self-bondage
belief is always dishonest.

Experience born from belief, is only experienced through the condition of that belief.

So, perhaps from the above KK, you will be able to discern that I'm not in the least interested in belief, except how to irradicate it.

As for Einstein's feeling that "god may be the energy that is in all matter", or that your submission that god is pure energy,...from my observations neither you nor Einstein are far from the truth. All that's being said here though is that you understand very little about energy, and nothing about Spirit.

If you wish to call your god, energy, then fine,...but I can show that energy is not real. Energy is merely a manifestation of the perceived separation from Source, the Causeless fulcrum upon which energy effects its motion into matter. Energies purpose is to realign with with Source, but never can, and never will.

As I said in a previous post, Wholeness is not a union of opposites.

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Vicente, I DO NOT LIKE TO BE RUDE, but I find your POV as uncompromising as that of GWB, Saddam Hussein, Sharone and Donald Rumsfeld. Your biggest problem is, you think you know it all.

Is everyone supposed to believe Vicente, because he says there is no God. Why don't you research Shin Buddhism, and read that The Buddha acknowledges a Higher Power than man.

In the Buddha Forum, as well as The Psychology Forum, I started a topic on Shin Buddhism, and a topic on Supernatural. If you open the links there, you will read that The Buddha never denied that there was A Higher Power than man. Yet you persist to ridicule those who disagree with your POV. I understand that you do not believe, that is OK, but because you do not, what is your purpose in trying to insist that others see things as you do?

[vicente]

RichieT,...imagine putting on pair of your favorite shoes. Now let me ask,...do you beLIEve they are your shoes? If they are indeed your shoes, there is no reason to beLIEve it.

You should understand very well that Vicente would rather be strapped to an anvil and thrown into an abyss, rather than lead anyone to "beLIEve" anything he had said.

If you are insistence that a god is real, and not the delusion of our ancestors, then lets hear it. However, badgering a messenger because you are not honest enough to accept the message, even if 98% of the Collective agrees with, and cheers on, such Group Think, is insane.

I feel most insulted (not a big deal) that you would include me in the company of such deceitful, anti-American despots as "GWB, Saddam Hussein, Sharone and Donald Rumsfeld".

I agree that the Buddha's didn't disagree that there were gods,...if you had read my last post in this thread, you would have seen that neither do I disagree that there are gods. I also agree that Buddhists not only should, but must, let go of the concepts about gods if they wish to realize truth. For there is no truth in god.

http://buddhism.koolhost.com/buddhaongod.htm
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm
http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/budd-christ.htm


Know god, no truth; gnow truth, no god.

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 24 2003, 08:47 AM
Vicente, I DO NOT LIKE TO BE RUDE, but I find your POV as uncompromising as that of GWB, Saddam Hussein, Sharone and Donald Rumsfeld. Your biggest problem is, you think you know it all.

Is everyone supposed to believe Vicente, because he says there is no God. Why don't you research Shin Buddhism, and read that The Buddha acknowledges a Higher Power than man.

In the Buddha Forum, as well as The Psychology* Science Forum, I started a topic on Shin Buddhism, and a topic on Supernatural. If you open the links there, you will read that The Buddha never denied that there was A Higher Power than man. Yet you persist to ridicule those who disagree with your POV. I understand that you do not believe, that is OK, but because you do not, what is your purpose in trying to insist that others see things as you do?

*Science was Psychology 7/24/03
* Revised 7/24/03 Science was Psychology

[vicente]

Your computer seems to be echoing RichieT

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Vicente,
They are supposed to allow you 1 hour to edit a post. I was not offered theEDIT option, so I revised the post by a self QUOTE option. ;)

[kkawohl]

Vicente,

Evidence is proof, something that shows what is true. Truth is established by testifying, bearing witness, attesting, declaring under oath that what is testified to, is actuality. In a court of law, as in civil action, evidence is presented and the validity of this evidence is assessed by a judge or jury who rule on it; their decision is accepted and it is determined that proof has been established by a preponderance of the evidence

Throughout several millennia evidence has been presented that a spiritual existence, the Spirit of God has interacted with our spirit via inspiration to write what are considered Holy Scriptures and to be the cause of miraculous healings; many physicians will attest to the latter. This is evidence, proof of the existence of God. Evidence of God's existence can also be seen in God's insiration of man's compilations and complexities of everything in existence, from the complex DNA makeup of a single cell, to the makeup of the entire universe.

The power of the wind is a small comparison to the power of God's Spirit. The wind can gently caress as it wafts across the land, stirring wildflowers, thereby causing their seeds or pollen to be carried along currents to pollinate another, creating a new life. The wind can also be a force that is unequaled by any other. We can not see the wind. We can not see or physically talk with God, but our spirit can unite and be guided by God's Spirit to accomplish the seemingly impossible.

Our spirit can often control the well-being of our body. With inspiration from God's Spirit, our spirit, very much like the wind can carry us through our life's journey and experience the beauty of God's creative powers or we can choose to reject the interaction and muddle through life with no purpose, feeling empty, worthless and lonely. We can resonate despondency and gloom or bloom like the wildflower, bringing joy to many who have contact with us and live our lives with joy and the knowledge that we have a reason for living. One of your apparent reasons for being here is, in order to justify our beliefs or knowledge even to ourselves, that we apply logic rather than blindly accept everything that we have read and been told.

Vicente, apparently all of what you believe about Buddhism is what you have read or been told. Buddhism is a belief system as are all religions. Religion is a collection of beliefs or faiths concerning the origin of man and the universe.

To refute all this evidence of a spiritual existence by saying that all is possible without supreme guidance from a spiritual existence (what man calls God) is to ignore proof. I do not have to believe, I KNOW that a spiritual existence is a spiritual reality.

Kurt

[vicente]

OK,..."Religion is a collection of beliefs or faiths concerning the origin of man and the universe",...sure. However, I would not heep Vajrayana into that basket.

Unfortunately you have seemed to missed my post regarding beLIEfs. What I understand of Buddhism actually comes from direct experience. And since experience born of beLIEf is not direct experience, but an experience through the condition of a beLIEf, I stand on some rather honest ground so to say. To conclude this point,...I'm not a Buddhist.

Neither you nor anyone else known, has ever provided any real evidence of the existence of a god, not one factual shread of evidence. As a Religious Studies major whom members of the Westar Institute said, in 1988, was one of the leading experts on christianity in the world, I'm quite certain that if there was any legitimate evidence regarding a "god", I would have heard.
However,...there is substancial evidence, from Judeaism, Christianity and Islam, that no god exists outside the deluded faith of its followers. In any American court of law that abides by the Constitution, with or without a jury, upon my testimony, christianity would be unveiled for the lie it is, and their god declared a fallacy.

KK, you're contriving a god to fit where there isn't one. You have no "proof", DNA or religious scriptures is not proof of a god,...and frankly I rather disappointed in this clinging to your beLIEfs for your identity.

I was wishing to hear of your direct experiences,...but all you're offering is your predispositions. I wasn't looking to compete,...besides, in the subjects at hand you demonstate a scant knowledge of the facts. Please, no offense meant,...its just that quite frankly, you are not as interested in honesty as you have promoted. All that I've read presented in this dialogue is simply a different twist on old christian lies.

I did not refute religious fiction by merely suggesting that it is possible without your gods guidance,...however, I did say that I have irrefutable proof that the Judeao-christian-islamic religions and their gods are nonsense. From Moses' talking volcanic vent, to the invention of jesus christ and neo-christianity, to the Justian prompted islamic insanity,...Western religions and their theo-beLIEfs are an atrocity and void of any meaningful contribution to the evolution of mankind and the Birthing of HumanBeingness.

Well, as the Buddhists say, don't throw pearls to the swine.

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Poor Vicente.
Sorry if you were insulted by the shock therapy, using the props of GWB and company. I think I forgot Ashcroft and Robertson. Well, the idea was not to insult you, but rather get those old blood flowing in those brain cells, which seem to be fixated on the mispelling and misinterpretting of the word; beLIEf/ve.!
According to Thorndike Barnhart, what we accept as true and real. IOW, I accept Thorndike's definition of belief/ve, as true and real.
I do not accept Vicente's definition of belief/ve as true and real. I believe that Thorndike and Barnhart, are more of an authority on words, than Vicente.

Try to understand Vicente, I am just trying to prove to you, how wrong you can be. One thing we have in common is we do agree that our present leadership is really bad.

Wish they would draft Senator Ted Kennedy. I believe he would be an excellent choice. :D

[vicente]

I certainly appreciate your attempt to prove something RichieT,...even your ficticous christian scriptures advocated some contradictory messages like "prove all things" 1Thess. As for me, I would really like to be proved wrong,...about anything I say. However, so far the only thing you've proven is that you are a christian minded-person pretending to be open-minded.

Lets take an honest look at your Thorndike Barnhart quote,...a belief is "what we accept as true and real". How is that any different than the textbook definitions I shared? What you "accept as true and real" isn't factually true and real,...its "true and real" only to you, and those who share in your groupthink.

Although the root of belief isn't LIE, I certainly like accentuating it that way, because fundamentally, every definition of the word beLIEf suggests that a beLIEf is a lie, merely a relative truth, even your Thorndike Barnhart definition suggests that.

Currently, the majority of Americans (58% of whom feel that what is written in the Bible's Book of Revelation will come to pass),
"accept as true and real" that bullying the world is its manifest destiny, and that GWB was chosen by their god, whom they "accept as true and real" is everyones god, to engage the forces of evil in battle.

The majority of American people "accept these things as true and real",...but they are not,...they are merely beLIEfs, and all beLIEFs are dishonest. For if one honestly understood what is "true and real", they wouldn't have to "accept as true and real" their beLIEfs.

A belief is simply an attachment to a perception that appears to make the unknown palatable to ego. Honesty on the other hand, understands that neither appearences or the physical senses, as Descartes said, can never be trusted as true or real, but are deceivers.

Ignorant people may say beLIEfs are true, but isn't it amazing how their beLIEfs are always changing,...perhaps not daily, or even generationally, but they do change. Real truth however, is known by its unchangingness.

Some christians say that it is a truth that killing another is wrong,...however, among many cultures such was not the case. In America, especially large christian populated States, killing is publically sanctioned. When US soldiers killed Saddams children the other day, they celebrated with "high-fives".

Uncover a single truth RichieT, and all your beLIEfs will crumble. For when truth is exposed, there is no need for beLIEfs.

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Hi vicente,

So, perhaps from the above ... you will be able to discern that I'm not in the least interested in belief, except how to irradicate it.

Strikes me as being as ill-fated an adventure as trying to eliminate any aspect of an ecosystem because its 'effects' are (selective-ignore-ance-ly) 'judged' and 'projected' to be totally 'negative' or 'unnecessary' to the ongoingness and wellbeingness of LIFE. Heaven forbid, you attract and mobilize an army of "Sig Heil"ers in support of that action-platform and manage to wield 'muscle' (over others) to that effect.

There is a 'middle way' which I think you are missing in this regard. But let me preface my attempt to provide some 'color' illumination to your (apparently, presently) totally black-or-white 'vision', Vicente by saying that I deeply appreciate and agree with many of the points you make in logical and evidential support of your 'positionality'; for example, I totally concur with the following statement by David Hawkins, to wit:

The limitation of radical reality is that it can only 'be'. Not only that, it can only specifically be precisely that which it is, with no descriptive terms applied at all. Abstractions have no existence or reality. They do not have the capacity to 'be'. All qualifiers are a perceptual artifice; none actually exist. Reality becomes self-evident when the obstruction of perception and mentation are removed, including all belief systems.

But, balancing all the 'deludedness' and negative (or 'hellishly' creative) consequences of 'belief'(s), which you so clearly argue and document, I have personally observed and experienced a great deal of very 'enlightened understanding' and positive (or 'heavenishly' creative) consequences, deriving from the dynamic principle – which I suggest to you is a FACT of 'Life', a part-and-parcel-of-the-nature-of-reality, universally present, ubiquitously operative dynamic which underlies all creative manifestation or 'act'ualization – and which some choose to call 'God') that is how-to-use-explained in: What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.[ (Mark 11:24). In fact, our existence and experience being as 'wonderful' and 'miraculous' as they are, I would say this more than merely 'balances' all the deludeness and negativity you have keenly noted and cited. The fact that we have managed to rise from 'mere' ooze this far is quite a glorious creative-'feat', in my estimation. We wouldn't have gotten 'here' – and, among other things, that means I would never have been here to rub shoulders with you, Vincente – without the 'stream of 'beliefs' that brought us 'here', none of the 'good' stuff would have happened either.

Here's a word to the wise (that is, I personally think it is very 'wise') regarding what appears to be a sword-waving iconoclastic 'crusade' you have embarked on, vicente, from, of all places, one of the books which you lambaste to unholy hell: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." (Matthew 13:24-30) Before you let your fuse get lit, remember, Jesus used allegories to reach people who were capable of understanding things in those terms – he wasn't postulating a 'real' enemy, for instance.

And here's some more from Hawkins to color in more of our/Life's belief-playing·field ecosystem (meaning all that 'eco-' entails).

]Q: Are beliefs also obstacles?

A: Yes and no. A belief is an operational substitute for the knowledge which can be gained only by experience. For instance, a traveler believes that a country called China exists, based on faith and information. The belief gives sufficient basis for action. The traveler first hears about China, then reads information. At that point, the person 'knows about' China. After the traveler actually lands in China, lives there and meets the people, then the traveler actually 'knows' China rather than knowing 'about' China. Once this occurs, the traveler needs no further beliefs or faith that China actually exists. Thus successful action starts with plausible belief. The belief, however, cannot be substituted for the actual experience.

Most people have many religious beliefs which serve as guides and in which they have faith. However, unless these are calibrated as to their actual levels of truth, the beliefs may indeed be fallacious or half-truths. Most spiritual error contains a grain of truth which then gets lost in misunderstanding or manipulated distortions. "Kill a Commie for Christ," or, "Kill an infidel for Allah" is very far from spiritual truth, but, generically, this type of statements is accepted over and over by millions of people through endless generations.

Sentimentality and emotionalism are superimposed on fallacious beliefs which give them added attraction and dominance in people's thinking. Religious absurdities gain momentum because they are 'religious'. As an example, in the year 1212, a European boy had a vision of being called to lead a children's crusade to free the Holy Land from the Islamic infidels. (Why God would be interested in who governs what real estate on the planet has never been answered). The popular appeal of the admixture of an 'innocent child' with a 'religious vision', plus the heroics of 'saving the Holy Land', resulted in a wave of enthusiasm. The children's crusade was horrific. They died by the thousands from exposure, exhaustion, disease, malnutrition, and other disasters. Of the few thousand remaining, none actually reached the Holy Land and all were finally captured and sold into slavery. The entire disaster was based on belief, faith, and religiosity. However, as a disaster, it was miniscule in the history of humanity in which whole continents, populations, civilizations, and major portions of human life were wiped out by fallacious religious fervor.

Thus faith and belief are necessary to start a journey, but verifiable knowledge is necessary to complete it. Without a compass or a sextant, the average sailor on the seas ends up at the bottom.

As the Buddha said, "Few are they who endeavor to make the journey, and fewer and rarer still are those who succeed." (Krishna said the same thing in the Bhagavad Gita.) [And, I would add, Jesus (reportedly) said, "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." All of the foregoing 'says' something significant about the 'best' that can be realistically expected from the 'democratic' process, at least at the current stage of human development, I think.]

And some more Hawkins from another place:

The evolution of consciousness requires a wide range of opportunities and a playing field that affords almost unlimited options for development. If human life represents a learning process, then society is the ideal school that affords an extremely wide range of options for numerous levels of consciousness to develop, progress, define, identify, and grasp endless subtleties as well as learn more gross lessons.

The ego is extremely tenacious and therefore often seems to require extreme conditions before it lets go of a positionality. It often takes the collective experience of millions of people over many centuries to learn even what appears on examination to be a simple and obvious truth, namely, that peace is better than war or love is better than hate.

The level of consciousness is determined by the choices made by the spiritual will and therefore is the consequence as well as the determinant of karma. Freedom to evolve requires a world which affords the greatest opportunity to ascend or descend the spiritual ladder. Viewed from that perspective, this is an ideal world and its society is constituted by a wide range of options.

Freedom is the opportunity to fashion one's own destiny and learn the inherent spiritual truths that are essential. For merit or demerit to occur, the choices have to be made in a state of belief and experience [my emphasis] that they are 'real'. Thus, even illusion subserves spiritual growth for its seems real at the time.[

Sincerely submitted - David

[sahyo]

Thus faith and belief are necessary to start a journey, but verifiable knowledge is necessary to complete it.


:lol: no


for numerous levels of consciousness to develop, progress, define, identify, and grasp endless subtleties as well as learn more gross lessons


haha...no


The level of consciousness is determined by the choices made by the spiritual will


:D nope


opportunity to ascend or descend the spiritual ladder


hahahhh

[vicente]

I suppose David S, that I can see your misunderstanding in my statement regarding irradicating belief,...I assumed that in the fuller content of the above posts it would be clear negative conditions arise when one selfishly seeks to experience only positive conditions,...my point regarding irradicating beliefs was purely addressing the middle way. negative and positive do not exist except as we see them as such.

In other words, useless suffering is just as useless as useless happiness.

I certainly like David Hawkins quote: "Reality becomes self-evident when the obstruction of perception and mentation are removed, including all belief systems",...although I would not have added the self to evident.

I also agree with you that belief "underlies all creative manifestation", and even that the creative process within the illusion of phenomenon can be called god. I disagree though, on your use of the word experience.

As I previously said, experience born of belief, is always experienced upon the condition of that belief,...thus invalidating the experience as an authentic experience, what I usually call a direct experience.

No matter from what position you may wish to view it, if one allows belief, such as a belief in a god, to stand between them and their experiences, then their experiences are not authentic.

Have you ever had an authentic experience David S?

To unfold this better,...ponder a single phrase,...that is, "Love is Unconditional". Don't add anything to this phrase. Don't think that since the late 2nd Century apology 1John says that "god is love", that god is love. Simply ponder what it would mean if "Love is Unconditional".

Now, in an honest fashion, if you could, play Neti-Neti,...that is, look at all that is not Unconditional to uncover what is Love. Remember, if any condition can be seen, then what is being observed is not Unconditional.

You can start by inquiring if christian love is unconditional,...which I addressed in the top post of the "in god we trust" thread in the Politics & Social Issues folder
http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...act=ST&f=6&t=17 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=17)

As for Jesus,...he is pretty much a fictious character based on Yeshua Ben Stada,...the notorious Yeshua the Notzri, who was born in BCE 7 and hung for sedition in 28CE. Most of the allegories you mentioned, including the so-called Sermon on the Mount, did not arise from neo-christianity.

The term Christ grew out of Memphite Philosophy; literally the Krst, the anointed ones, like the Risen Horus/Apis. Then in the 5th century BCE, the word Christos, referring to an Awakened One, crept into Greek Literature, which can be found in the works of classical writers like Aeschylus, and the Father of History, Herodotus. Interestingly this was the same time that Siddhartha Buddha, the Light of Asia, realized that suffering is a direct result of the desire for things to be other than they are.

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Please note, vicente, that my response was based on your categorical 'put down' of 'belief'. Your reponse notwithstanding, it still remains as articulated.

So you may be able to tune into my wavelenght better, here's another example of what I personally consider to be your 'unconditional' :lol: 'put down' of belief:

Originally posted by vicente@Jul 24 2003, 03:34 PM
As I previously said, experience born of belief, is always experienced upon the condition of that belief,...thus invalidating the experience as an authentic experience, what I usually call a direct experience.

No matter from what position you may wish to view it, if one allows belief, such as a belief in a god, to stand between them and their experiences, then their experiences are not authentic.
My logic-thinking goes: If a person has a belief which 'shapes' and/or 'colors' his/her realizations and expeer·iences, then those are his or her ACTUAL realizations and expeer·iences. And such realizations and expeer·iences are de facto 'authentic' by virtue of their being 'actual' ones. They are no less 'real' and thusare equally 'authentic' as any other personal realizations and expeer·iences (note the word's relation with 'author'), certainly as any of your realizations and expeer·iences are for you.

Have you ever had an authentic experience David S?
Obviously, from my statement above, my answer is yes, vicente. The only times I have been 'inauthentic' is when I haven't honestly acknowledged (or personal-response-ability 'owned') and lived 'according to' my own inner realizations and outer expeerience (either in my own or others' eyes).

Given my understanding of what 'authenticity' really is and 'means' (in contrast to what you seem to think it is and means), I hope you can understand my questioning and resisting what I 'see' as a misguided attempt on your part to 'corner the market' on "authentic" experience, as well as my suggesting that you examine the nature of your 'beliefs' (yes, vicente, 'beliefs'!) which result in your being 'motivated' to do so.

David

[DavidS]

Hi vicente -

I suppose, in the spirit of being 'authentic', I should also respond your saying:
To unfold this better,...ponder a single phrase,...that is, "Love is Unconditional". Don't add anything to this phrase. Don't think that since the late 2nd Century apology 1John says that "god is love", that god is love. Simply ponder what it would mean if "Love is Unconditional".

Now, in an honest fashion, if you could, play Neti-Neti,...that is, look at all that is not Unconditional to uncover what is Love. Remember, if any condition can be seen, then what is being observed is not Unconditional.

Etc.
But saying that 'Love' is 'Unconditional' does not 'translate' into 'Unconditional' is 'Love'. Personally, based on both the content and spirit of some of your 'diatribes' against 'beliefs', my 'view' is that you do not know the meaning of either 'Unconditional' or 'Love'. Either that or (an alternative possibility I also 'view'-wonder about) that the intensity of your passions pertaining to what you have witnessed and or experienced as 'limitation' and 'harm' resulting from sundry 'beliefs' 'blinded' you to the nature of what was 'spewing' through you and resulted in your being 'inauthentic' in some sense.

No desire to talk with you about Jesus' (or anyone else's for that matter) sayings and the like unless I get a sense that you yourself in 'significant' measure 'in touch with', and/or are open to 'knowing' what others 'in touch with', in such regards -- in a 'reasonably' appreciative, i.e., 'unconditionally loving,' ;) fashion, that is.

- David

[rich]

Unconditional?

BS

Unconditional is a 2 way street, iow, there are certain rules/dharma/laws/behavior/etc. one must follow.
It is not a free orgasmic world, revolving around Vicente,
although some think they are center of attraction. :ph34r:

[vicente]

The reason, I suppose, for David S, that Love is Unconditional does not translate to Unconditional is Love, is perhaps he is too smothered in his own beliefs to recognize it. To recognize the Unconditional, is to observe what it is not. David S and RichieT however, appear stuck on their predisposition of what they think it is, instead of simply judging (yes, non-judgemental judging is a tool of awakening) conditions and Unconditions.

As I recently heard said, an awakening heart is simultaneously thrilled and terrified. Yet the responses to my posts above can only be characterized as agitated. Agitated that anyone would dare tug on the thick drappery concealing the love that they are.

Yes, I'm familar with that part of the historical bodhisattva way to descend to the others level so to gradually steer them towards some semblence of consciousness,...however, in reading the above responses, I would have to descend so low that I may become as veiled in beliefs as the above posters.

I've never claimed to be a bodhisattva,...but if one stopped in here, I'd doubt they would see any spark worth their time either. That is to say, in all the points I've shared here, the only concern appears to be the safeguarding of their delusion, and not a smidgeon of honesty.

However, not to abandon this thread completely,...if anyone happens along who actually wishes to respond to my posts, for what say, and not for what their ego's think was said, I'll reply without hesitation.

Until then, I'll conclude with a quote from ACIM:
"the ego uses the body to conspire against your Mind (in this context the Mind has no relation to intellect), and because the ego realizes that its 'enemy' (the Mind) can end them both (ego and body) merely by recognizing they are not part of You (the Mind), they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves.
The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the Mind, which is real, that the Mind is ego's learning device; and further, that the body is more real then the Mind is.
No one in their right Mind could possibly believe this, and no one in Their 'right Mind' does believe it"

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Hi Kurt -

Having seriously thought about the kinds of reorientation of that are most 'crucial' for the coninued spiritual and social development of humanity at large, I was quite fascinated by both the content and tone of your account of your experiences and 'revelations', IMO, you present a lot of very 'good', or 'vital', stuff pertaining to the Life we are all part of and 'person'ally live within in your 'vision', both in terms of 'truths' and 'distinctions'.

May your sharing maximally enhance the process of humanity's flowering and fruition.

I'd like to run one things by you though, if you are still here and wish to continue along the lines of the conversation you started. And that pertains to the 'truth' or 'belief' (depending, I suppose, on whether one 'believes' it is 'true' or not :lol: ) that only people who are inclined to live 'in accord' with 'conscience' will attain/experience 'immortality' of the sort you mention.

The catch-22 problem associated with many people 'hearing' and believing-thinking this, is that they then aim/intend to be 'good', i.e., do what is 'best' in 'conscience', in order to 'reach', i.e., to 'insure' that they 'get' the anticipated 'reward' of, 'immortality' in a 'heavenly' place, and to avoid possible personal 'extinction'.

Such motive being selfish, they 'miss the boat' in terms of what 'conscience' really 'requires' that we 'do', as alluded to in the lines (spoken, as is often the custom among mystics and the like, in terms of a universal 'persona' or 'identity'): "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

IOW, people who fixate and focus their intent on their personal 'identity' shoot themselves in the foot in terms of finding 'it' (their 'real' one).

This (emphasizing the 'connection' between 'immortality' and 'conscience') is also not a 'good' way, at leaast not 'the best' way, of 'teaching' (about) morality, IMO. The 'spirit' of being-n-doing 'good' ain't 'pure' (i.e., it ain't 'completely' 'good') unless whatever is been and done is done on and for its own 'merits', because 'spirit' simply regards such being-n-doing, in and of itself, as the 'best' way to be-n-do for LIFE, that is, for ALL concerned; and wants to and likes doing so for that sort of 'reason'; again, IMO.

Have you any further thoughts on the subject?

David

[DavidS]

Originally posted by kkawohl@Jul 21 2003, 04:23 PM
The "spiritual dimension” at some point interacts with the physical dimension ...that is where one can find evidence of the spiritual realm of God, although all of our scientific facts are applicable only in this physical dimension, not in the spiritual. The existence of spiritual souls or God, or God’s Spirit interacting with the spirits of physical beings can not and will never be proven by science.
Looks like Kurt may have bounced on. But I wanted to share received something today (part of an online 'subscription' thang) which touched on the issue of transformative spiritual experiences, which he raised, in any event.

Are these, if such may thought of as a 'type' of occurrence, something we personally somehow 'draw to' or otherwise 'make happen' to us?

Or do they 'happen' to us as a result of some other 'providence'?

Or some combination of both types of 'causes'?

Regardless of the particular forms of mentation associated with them -- visual-image·inative, auditory-tonal, or verbal-conceptual-symbolic-linguistic, etc. -- what is the spiritual 'nature' of such kinds of 'happenings'.

I found the below-pasted "Thought for the Day" (referenced above) a 'discerning' meditation pertaining to the author's personal observations and experiences of the spiritual variety, and had fun playing with it as a kind of 'case in point' to ponder in regards the above the above-raised queeries.
===========

Subj: Thought for the Day
Date: 7/28/2003 5:17:55 AM US Mountain Standard Time
From: Eman8tions@aol.com

A spiritual experience produces a fundamental change in awareness. The extent of that varies greatly. Here is the question: What do we do after a spiritual experience?

The answer is that it depends on the depth of the experience and the depth of our conditioning to maintain the ways of behavior we have learned.

One common example is the person who goes to church, experiences the holy spirit, and goes right back on Monday to being the same impossible contradiction of of every teaching that they experienced on Sunday morning.

At the other end of the extreme is the soul shattering awakening that changes us forever, reaches the depths of our being, leaves us shattered, unable to continue our old ways, drawn to spirit from that moment on.

And there are all kinds of experiences in between, the most common being the one in which we come to the spiritual place, are deeply moved, resolve to make certain changes, then return to reality not knowing quite what to do with ourselves.

We try to share our awakening with others, family, friends, loved ones, and we experience the hard walls of resistance. It can be disconcerting, frustrating, maddening to see and experience the beauty and have no one to share it with.

We may be led then to go back to our usual patterns. Or we may simply assume the position of the eccentric lunatic.

The thing I have had to learn is that everyone has their own way, that my experience is not necessarily the one for everyone. What people do respond to is love, kindness, thoughtfulness, consideration, any form of attention.

Proselytizing is famously unsuccessful. People will reveal their needs, tell me what they want. I need to respect them for two reasons: (1) so I don't drive them crazy and (2) so I don't drive myself crazy.

The return to reality is the beautiful test of a spiritual experience. Did I just get high on God? Or did I experience a kind of awareness that leads me to be loving, kind and considerate?
--------------

Eman8tions
Copyright © 2003 by John MacEnulty
7/28/2003, St. Louis, MO

Subscription is, and always will be, free.
Email your request to
Eman8tions@aol.com

Web site address:
http://Emanations.net/

Please feel free to forward Eman8tions
to anyone you think will enjoy it or benefit from it.
If you are receiving Eman8tions as a forward
please feel free to subscribe for yourself.