Right Or Wrong?

[wacawacany]

Is conduct right because Jehoavah commands it?
"According to Exodus 20:16, God commands us to be truthful. On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply that God requires it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither good nor bad. It is God's command that makes truthfulness right.
"But this leads to trouble, for it represents God's commands as arbitrary. It means that God could have given different commands just as easily. He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying, and not truthfulness, would be right. (You man be tempted to reply: "But God would never command us to lie!" But why not? If he did endorse lying, God would not be commanding us to do wrong, because his command would make l ying right.) Remember that on this view, honesty was not right before God commanded it. Therefore, he could have had no more reason to command it than it's opposite; and so, from a moral point of view, his command is perfectly arbitrary."

Does Jehovah command it because it is right?
"God, who is infinitely wise, realizes that truthfulness is far better t han deceitfulness, and so he commands us to be truthful; he sees that killing is wrong, and so he commands us not to kill; and so on for all the commandments.
"God's commands turn out to be not at all arbitrary; they are the result of his wisdom in knowing what is best. And the doctrine of the goodness of God is preserved: To say that his commands are good means that he commands only what, in perfect wisdom, he sees to be the best. But this option leads to a different problem, which is equally troublesome for the theological conception of right and wrong: In taking this option, we have virtually abandoned the theological conception of right and wrong.
"If we say that God commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, the we are admitting that there is some standard of right and wrong that is independant of God's will. We are saying that God sees or recognizes that truthfulness is right, and that is very different from his making it right. The rightness exists prior to and independent of God's command, and it is the reason for the command."

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy 3rd Edition, pages 56-58.


so does all this mean that God is powered by an even higher God?? what is it we are worshipping?? what is considered right and wrong??

[jesupocaplypse]

Imagined Higher/Lower

"We" are worshipping? Do you have a tapeworm? If no... speak for yourself.

Worship is something demanded by tyrants who are insecure in their power.

Right and Wrong is what You consider it to be.


When did 'God' make these Commands? I have never heard her tell me such things.
Is the words in a book, written by men... God?

No such thing as free will, if some 'imagined' superior commands your behavior.

[wacawacany]

i understand exactly what you mean, im athiest. this passage just made me question some more. why do christians believe so deeply that the bible is the word of "God" ? whoever he/she is.

[NeverMind]

Because human beings are gullible sheep and will believe anything if it makes them feel more important. people dont want to believe that they are just another animal on our overpopulated earth. they want to feel special and religion gives them that. they gain a meaning in life other than breeding. and humans dont want to believe that the only reason they are on earth is to keep our species going. people want to be Adam and Eve, created in God's image.

[sahyo]

they want to feel special



:applause:

[sahyo]

if some 'imagined' superior



:thumbsup:

[NeverMind]

exactly. humans want to feel special. and to some degree every human has special qualities, but those are merely adaptations that enable one to find a mate and pass one's genes on to another generation. we all wanna have some divine purpose. but you dont. you are here to make more. you are not here to build a multibillion dollar empire, you are not here to invent things, to create things, you are here to make BABIES!

so i can eat them

[Nick_A]

Hello wacawacany

"God's commands turn out to be not at all arbitrary; they are the result of his wisdom in knowing what is best. And the doctrine of the goodness of God is preserved: To say that his commands are good means that he commands only what, in perfect wisdom, he sees to be the best. But this option leads to a different problem, which is equally troublesome for the theological conception of right and wrong: In taking this option, we have virtually abandoned the theological conception of right and wrong.
Are the commandments for God's benefit or our benefit? Is it reasonable to think that God becomes upset. People become upset because they are subject to a false sense of "I" or corrupt ego. God is not corrupt so wouldn't get upset.

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain"

So what does this mean? It means that certain words such as "God" contain a certain potency, a quality of energy and materiality that is necessary for higher parts of our own presence. We can prostitute these words through swearing and the like but in reality it only serves to deny our spiritual parts needed nutrition. Instead of us digesting these nutrients through prayer, meditation, and contemplation, we expel them from our body in these bursts of negative emotion.

The same holds true with:

Exodus 20:16 (New International Version)
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Why not? If it doesn't effect God, how can it effect you. It does so because giving this false testimony means that you cannot be honest internally. You cannot see yourself or be willing to carry your own cross. The concern is for image as opposed to reality. If one wants to profit from Christianity, it requires internal honesty. If you are afraid to be yourself, you are controlled by the opinions of others denying the benefits possible through Christianity. Jesus tried endlessly to get the Pharisees to recognize the advantage of reality over image. Reality cannot be built on a lie. If you feel compelled to give false testimony, it just means that you are controlled by image. If your goal is to be Christian, false testimony denies it. It is not a matter of right and wrong but what allows one to benefit from Christianity

[bito]

Hi Nevermind:

Because human beings are gullible sheep and will believe anything if it makes them feel more important. people dont want to believe that they are just another animal on our overpopulated earth. they want to feel special and religion gives them that. they gain a meaning in life other than breeding. and humans dont want to believe that the only reason they are on earth is to keep our species going. people want to be Adam and Eve, created in God's image.

Animals are one*ness without reflection on the meaning of one*ness. This reflection is not a need to feel special, but an authentic expression of the meaning of what it is to be a human being, rather than being a dog being, or a cat being or a horse being. The essence of horse is not the same as essence of human. This does not mean human being is better than horse being, rather, that the meaning of human*ness is different than the meaning of horse*ness.

Meaningful thinking is our essence and religion opens the door to this discovery. Opens the door, not IS the door :) .

[bito]

Hi Nick:

Is it reasonable to think that God becomes upset. People become upset because they are subject to a false sense of "I" or corrupt ego. God is not corrupt so wouldn't get upset.

It is this belief that God gets upset (the wrath of God) that has sent many away from Christianity and into the arms of New Age Thought. Christianity's presentation of an afterlife heaven and hell (reward and punishment) is the God of childish foot-stamping, an egomanical puppetmaster if ever there was one. I believe it is this egotistical image of God that is most responsible for the externally-motivated 'I' - how to please this jealous and angry God and still honor one's physical nature becomes the burning question...no pun intended... :) .

If you are afraid to be yourself, you are controlled by the opinions of others denying the benefits possible through Christianity.

Again, this jealous and angry God must be seen as a creation of man's insecurities if authenticity (objective self) is to be revealed. If even a trace of the sense of 'God is watching me' exists, then the 'I' will be conflicted. God is not watching, God Is.

[NeverMind]

Animals are one*ness without reflection on the meaning of one*ness. This reflection is not a need to feel special, but an authentic expression of the meaning of what it is to be a human being, rather than being a dog being, or a cat being or a horse being. The essence of horse is not the same as essence of human. This does not mean human being is better than horse being, rather, that the meaning of human*ness is different than the meaning of horse*ness.


I know, thats kinda what I was saying. Because of our high(er) intellects, we have the power to reflect and to think and wonder. That is the difference between us and horses, cats, dogs, etc. But I'm not so sure this ability is a good thing when it leads to religious fanaticism. And most of the time it doesn't, but right there is a Christian president waging war against an Islamic Jihad. Without our intellect and our ability to ponder the "why" of our existance, we woudn't have such conflicts. Our intellect has given us many great things and made us the masters of our world, on the other hand it has caused pollution, war, etc. Is it really worth it?

[rich]

The question you should be wondering about is who or what created or invented life, and why?

However that you may answer this question, you will find some to agree with you, and some will disagree.

That puts us back to square one.

But, my answer is, I do not know, how or what is the source of life/movement/intellect is, but God is a possibility.

[bito]

I know, thats kinda what I was saying. Because of our high(er) intellects, we have the power to reflect and to think and wonder. That is the difference between us and horses, cats, dogs, etc. But I'm not so sure this ability is a good thing when it leads to religious fanaticism.

If you ponder what religious fanaticism is, would you say that those expressing themselves in such a way are behaving reasonably, never mind in/from pure reason? And if you agree that this behavior is in no way related even to reasonableness, never mind :) pure reason, then what would you say is motivating this type of fanaticism?

And most of the time it doesn't, but right there is a Christian president waging war against an Islamic Jihad. Without our intellect and our ability to ponder the "why" of our existance, we woudn't have such conflicts.

No argument there, and it is often these conflicts that causes us to turn away from the intellect and deny its meaning. Quite understandable, but since pondering and contemplation is what is unique to our species, how can we remain in this denial without feeling a sense of loss, a 'betrayal' of essence?

Our intellect has given us many great things and made us the masters of our world, on the other hand it has caused pollution, war, etc. Is it really worth it?

I believe so. Without intellect married to universal love, who/what will change the world that is so messy in its confusion? By changing the world, I do not mean changing with expectations as to this or that happening, rather, an intelligent loving participation in its events as per one's personal knowledge of metaphysics, science and love?

Perhaps love nourishes intellect and intellect serves love...speaking of which, I would be delighted to hear the meaning of your 'motto'...Server of Servants...if you care to share... :)

[sahyo]

This reflection is not a need to feel special, but an authentic expression of the meaning of what it is to be a human being, rather than being a dog being, or a cat being or a horse being. The essence of horse is not the same as essence of human. This does not mean human being is better than horse being, rather, that the meaning of human*ness is different than the meaning of horse*ness.

Meaningful thinking is our essence and religion opens the door to this discovery. Opens the door, not IS the door .



:lol:

[sahyo]

Without intellect married to universal love, who/what will change the world that is so messy in its confusion?



:lol:

[bito]

asheera

Your many smilies and neti-neti*ing/zen*ning is your expressing of meaning and your desiring to change the confusions of the world. If asheera did not wish to affect the world, then asheera would remain silent.

:P :)

[NeverMind]

The only way to have universal love is by eliminating a fundamental part of the essense of humanity: greed. Even people who have all they need still want more. Thus, there is no way to have this universal love and, therefore, no way to change the world. We must change as a species. If we REALLY want to, we are going to have to be perfectly dedicated to it, and we must practice being completely selfless. If one person practiced being completely selfless (as Jesus did) he/she would have the power to change the lives of many. This is what angers me about capitalist christians: their leader and symbol of perfection was the most selfless person ever to live, yet they more strongly believe in the accumulation of economic and political capital than the selfless ways Jesus taught. Therefore, capitalists must be shown the error of their ways. Or killed. DOWN WITH THE BOURGEOIS!

Only once everyone has humbled themselves and become completely selfless will peace be a remote possibility. Everyone must love EVERYONE

[sahyo]

If asheera did not wish to affect the world, then asheera would remain silent.



imagining-bito can "affect"?

singing-bird is trying to "affect"?

[NeverMind]

You alone can affect!
Be selfless!
Let them take and steal and plunder!
when they see you do nothing, some will ponder.
and some of the ponderers will change.

[Thomas Knierim]

The short text from James Rachels that wacawacany has initially cited points to a fundamental paradox that exists in Christian theology. The core of this argument is as follows: If God has commanded good instead of evil this must be so, because God wants good, but in spite of willing good, evil exists. This contradicts the principle of God’s omnipotence. If God wishes goodness and if he is truly omnipotent, God must have the power to create a world without evil. Yet, since evil exists it must be assumed that either God did not want to create a perfect world, or that God’s creation is imperfect, or that good and evil is otherwise beyond God’s control.

This question has been addressed by almost every theologician. Since Western thinkers tend to avoid contradictions and to create cohesive systems of thought, most of the theological arguments aim at eliminating the paradox and sidestepping any of the above conclusions. Indeed, this was standard argument fodder for the scholastic philosophers of the medieval times.

The standard theological answer is the following: God has created man after his image. Therefore, God has equipped man with reason and will. Because man is capable of reason and will, he is capable of volitional choice, and because he is capable of choice, he is capable of choosing evil. This means that evil comes into the world only through the choice of man. It exists indirectly as a result of human acts, and not as a result of God’s will.

Whether this really answers the paradox is questionable. Of course, God is off the hook. He is not directly responsible for human choices and their outcomes. On the other hand, God is still indirectly responsible for the state of the world as its creator, since he could as well have given humans enough wisdom to avoid evil and to make good choices only. It is likewise incomprehensible how a good-willing God allows suffering in the world. While one can understand suffering as purification, a necessary ingredient for moving from an evil state to a good state, this paradox cannot be fully resolved within theological doctrines, because the corrupted state should not exist in the first place.

These philosophical and theological considerations are ultimately not “real” in any sense. They are reflections of an immature mind that grapples with the problems of “having fallen from grace”. As such they are characteristic for the European society of the past two thousand years. Their phrasing and context is culturally delineated by Christianity and Western philosophy. Yet, it is not the phrasing that creates the problem, nor is it the concept of God. If this would be the case, not believing in God or rejecting Christianity would solve the problem. However, neither atheism and agnosticism do provide an answer to the problem of having fallen from grace, not to mention a way out of it.

The problem is rather rooted in a lack of spiritual understanding. To stay within the Christian terminology, the problem is that very few Christians understand God. They understand God as an external power, either as an (unreal) projection, an ideation, or as a (real) personification/intelligence, which is above and separate from them. Precisely that separation is the problem. In reality, we are neither separate nor different from God. Once we have truly understood that, evil disappears on its own, because evil cannot stand the presence of God. However, as long as we see ourselves as separate entities, different from each other, and different from God, we are hiding our real identity. We are not ourselves, but inferior entities with a name, a passport, a job, and so on. We are ephemeral, suffering, selfish, and unimportant. As inferior entities we are capable of committing sins, since our understanding is limited. But once connect with God, we connect with the vastness of the universe and with every living thing in it. Our inferiority suddenly disappears and sins become impossible.

Thomas

[sahyo]

You alone can affect!
Be selfless!
Let them take and steal and plunder!
when they see you do nothing, some will ponder.
and some of the ponderers will change.





Love is reckless; not reason.

Reason seeks a profit.

Love comes on strong,

consuming herself, unabashed.



Yet, in the midst of suffering,

Love proceeds like a millstone,

hard surfaced and straightforward.



Having died of self-interest,

she risks everything and asks for nothing.

Love gambles away every gift God bestows.



Without cause God gave us Being;

without cause, give it back again.




Rumi

[sahyo]

Your many smilies and neti-neti*ing/zen*ning is your expressing of meaning and your desiring to change the confusions of the world.



:lol:

[bito]

imagining-bito can "affect"?

singing-bird is trying to "affect"?

A singing bird does not question singing. Asheera questions and questions and questions and questions and...


Love is reckless; not reason.

Reason seeks a profit.

Love comes on strong,

consuming herself, unabashed.



Yet, in the midst of suffering,

Love proceeds like a millstone,

hard surfaced and straightforward.



Having died of self-interest,

she risks everything and asks for nothing.

Love gambles away every gift God bestows.



Without cause God gave us Being;

without cause, give it back again.




Rumi


Rumi/asheera says Love is this and that - reckless, strong, unabashed, straightforward, like a millstone. Rumi/asheera has many words, many qualifiers for Love. What not simply say 'Love is'? Because Rumi/asheera wants us to know that s/he knows what Love is. Rumi/asheera is trying to affect those reading his/her naming of Love. Plain and simple. Better Rumi/asheera present a blank page when saying Love (or Dancing) than describe or show their imaginings of love and dancing.

There is intellect and reasoning and affecting in Rumi/asheera's poetry, just not named as such.

Now, time for asheera's :lol:

:D

[sahyo]

A singing bird does not question singing. Asheera questions and questions and questions and questions and...



:lol: seems questioning singingbird?



Rumi/asheera says Love is this and that - reckless, strong, unabashed, straightforward, like a millstone. Rumi/asheera has many words, many qualifiers for Love. What not simply say 'Love is'? Because Rumi/asheera wants us to know that s/he knows what Love is. Rumi/asheera is trying to affect those reading his/her naming of Love. Plain and simple. Better Rumi/asheera present a blank page when saying Love (or Dancing) than describe or show their imaginings of love and dancing.

There is intellect and reasoning and affecting in Rumi/asheera's poetry, just not named as such.



dear, you're reading the poems/postings as though can "duality" you imagining-believing

when ceases imagining as though can duality so will imagining cause/"effect"/affect and "know"



Better Rumi/asheera present a blank page when saying Love (or Dancing) than describe or show their imaginings of love and dancing.



seems can "blank"notblank?



:D

[Nick_A]

Hello Thomas. You wrote:

The problem is rather rooted in a lack of spiritual understanding. To stay within the Christian terminology, the problem is that very few Christians understand God. They understand God as an external power, either as an (unreal) projection, an ideation, or as a (real) personification/intelligence, which is above and separate from them. Precisely that separation is the problem. In reality, we are neither separate nor different from God. Once we have truly understood that, evil disappears on its own, because evil cannot stand the presence of God. However, as long as we see ourselves as separate entities, different from each other, and different from God, we are hiding our real identity. We are not ourselves, but inferior entities with a name, a passport, a job, and so on. We are ephemeral, suffering, selfish, and unimportant. As inferior entities we are capable of committing sins, since our understanding is limited. But once connect with God, we connect with the vastness of the universe and with every living thing in it. Our inferiority suddenly disappears and sins become impossible.

Meister Eckhart wrote:

If I say that "God is good", this is not true. I am good, but God is not good! In fact, I would rather say that I am better than God, for what is good can become better and what can become better can become the best! Now God is not good, and so he cannot become better. Since he cannot become better, he cannot become the best. These three are far from God: "good", "better", "best", for he is wholly transcendent. If I say again that "God is wise", then this too is not true. I am wiser than he is! Or if I say that "God exists", this is also not true. He is being beyond being: he is a nothingness beyond being. Therefore St. Augustine says: "The finest thing that we can say of God is to be silent concerning him from the wisdom of inner riches." Be silent therefore, and do not chatter about God, for by chattering about him, you tell lies and commit a sin. If you wish to be perfect and without sin, then do not prattle about God. Also you should not wish to understand anything about God, for God is beyond all understanding. A master says: If I had a God that I could understand, I would not regard him as God. If you understand anything about him, then he is not in it, and by understanding something of him, you fall into ignorance.

As far as separation and man being the same as God, I have to stick with Meister Eckhart on this one. Unlike God, I think we need some inner work.

[Nick_A]

Hello NeverMind

The only way to have universal love is by eliminating a fundamental part of the essense of humanity: greed. Even people who have all they need still want more. Thus, there is no way to have this universal love and, therefore, no way to change the world. We must change as a species. If we REALLY want to, we are going to have to be perfectly dedicated to it, and we must practice being completely selfless. If one person practiced being completely selfless (as Jesus did) he/she would have the power to change the lives of many. This is what angers me about capitalist christians: their leader and symbol of perfection was the most selfless person ever to live, yet they more strongly believe in the accumulation of economic and political capital than the selfless ways Jesus taught. Therefore, capitalists must be shown the error of their ways. Or killed. DOWN WITH THE BOURGEOIS!

Seems sensible. The people incapable of learning and not showing love should be killed by those capable of and demonstrating love so as to eliminate greed. Why didn't I think of this before? I must be getting old.

[Thomas Knierim]

As far as separation and man being the same as God, I have to stick with Meister Eckhart on this one. Unlike God, I think we need some inner work.

Yes, we need inner work. It consists in reestablishing the link with God (which was always there, but temporarily disconnected), or respectively realizing our Buddha nature (which was likewise always there, but temporarily submerged). There is nothing about which I disagree with Meister Eckhart in this regard and hence, there is no contradiction with the text you cited. God is not good, because "good" is attributed by the thinking, distinguishing, judging mind. In fact, God cannot be thought and cannot be understood by the intellect. Therefore "good" does not apply to God. "Sin" is likewise a categoristaion, a judgment by the thinking mind. Upon the restoration of the God link such categorisation will disappear and we will become incapable of sin, because it is against our nature.

Cheers, Thomas

[Nick_A]

Thomas

Yes, we need inner work. It consists in reestablishing the link with God (which was always there, but temporarily disconnected), or respectively realizing our Buddha nature (which was likewise always there, but temporarily submerged). There is nothing about which I disagree with Meister Eckhart in this regard and hence, there is no contradiction with the text you cited.

I believe it is more reestablishing ourselves. What sort of link with God is possible if the human condition is indeed what St. Paul described as the Wretched Man in Romans 7

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God–through Jesus Christ our Lord!

The nature of our fallen plurality does not allow for reestablishing. Also consider what is said in the Gospel of Thomas:

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."

There seems to be a lot of reestablishing of ourselves necessary before thinking of anything higher. It is not just a change of attitude which is required but a change of "being" itself.

God is not good, because "good" is attributed by the thinking, distinguishing, judging mind. In fact, God cannot be thought and cannot be understood by the intellect. Therefore "good" does not apply to God. "Sin" is likewise a categoristaion, a judgment by the thinking mind. Upon the restoration of the God link such categorisation will disappear and we will become incapable of sin, because it is against our nature.

Is "good" really only an aspect of thought? In Genesis 1 then"good" is inside God as light. Is this just an intellectual perception or also an emotional qualitative perception?

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

As I understand it "Jesus Christ" has two meanings. When Jesus is used it refers to the "good". When "Christ" is used, it refers to the "law". Jesus Christ is the unification of the good with the law. The good is above the law. The purpose of the law is to reach the good which we became incapable of so Jesus, representing the "good", compensated through his sacrifice for the restrictions of the law. This isn't intellectual, IMO it is emotional understanding that evolves into real "feelings".

Sure sin is an intellectual categorisation but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist also as an objective reality which is the natural tendency to "miss the mark". When we go off course it is through sin which is just the lawful results of nature's way and the same reason why there are no straight lines in nature. Nature's way is to have life go around in circles and cycles and as we are, without self knowledge, just continue to participate blindly in the cycles of nature. From dust to dust.

Maybe our being must change, re-birth, before we can think of reestablishing a contact with God.

[sahyo]

Maybe our being must change, re-birth, before we can think of reestablishing a contact with God.



"reestablishing" as though can "contact" as though separate?

[bito]

see next post...this one was a duplicate and is now gone to cyberspace afterlife...

[bito]

Rumi/asheera says Love is this and that - reckless, strong, unabashed, straightforward, like a millstone. Rumi/asheera has many words, many qualifiers for Love. What not simply say 'Love is'? Because Rumi/asheera wants us to know that s/he knows what Love is. Rumi/asheera is trying to affect those reading his/her naming of Love. Plain and simple. Better Rumi/asheera present a blank page when saying Love (or Dancing) than describe or show their imaginings of love and dancing.

There is intellect and reasoning and affecting in Rumi/asheera's poetry, just not named as such.

dear, you're reading the poems/postings as though can "duality" you imagining-believing

when ceases imagining as though can duality so will imagining cause/"effect"/affect and "know"

The Game of Metaphysics continues...

Tag, we're it!

:)

[bito]

deleted duplicate post...gone to cyberspace afterlife...

[bito]

I have no idea what happened during that last posting attempt!

:chairdrop:

[Thomas Knierim]

St. Paul: 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God–through Jesus Christ our Lord!

What St. Paul describes is a condition of split being resulting from wrongful identification. He identifies himself either with the mind, or with the body, or with both. These identifications are inaccurate, thus he feels torn apart by ostensibly disparate entities. This is a troublesome condition. He says that his body is waging war against the mind. Actually the opposite is true. The mind is warring war against the body. This is not unusual at all, and it is quite representative for the human condition, although not universally true. In particular, the body mind split with the mind being artificially elevated over the body is a characteristic feature of Western thought. Philosophically, it culminated in Descartes.

Gospel of Thomas: (22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."

I think what Jesus meant was this: The suckling infant is a metaphor for the relationship between the individual and the universe. Those who enter the kingdom are those who have reestablished the link to the source (God). They are nourished by it without having to seek it or labor for it. Also, their mind is of the same purity as that of an infant. The second part about “making the two one” describes how to get to this state, namely by transcending duality. Making the inside outside and the outside inside is accomplished by opening up consciousness, thus letting the world in, and vice versa by allowing the spirit to flow out into the world, which comes with the realization that there is no real difference between the inner and outer world. Unifying the above and below means rising above quantitative differences (which are often falsely perceived as qualitative differences), and the unification of the male and female principles means probably the same as the Chinese conception of Yin and Yang flowing from the same source, i.e. realization of the source. The last part about the body parts is –I believe– an allegory for being conscious and awake through the body and following the natural course of growth, though I could be wrong about this.

Nick: Is "good" really only an aspect of thought? In Genesis 1 then"good" is inside God as light. Is this just an intellectual perception or also an emotional qualitative perception?

It doesn’t really make a difference whether “good” is perceived intellectually or emotionally, since both are judgment functions of the human mind. Emotional judgment operates at a subconscious level, whereas intellectual judgment operates at the level of conscious thought. The idea that good and bad have an independent reality outside human mind is the cardinal error of Platonic (and even more so neo-platonic) philosophy, and unfortunately Christianity was influenced heavily by it. Good and bad are attributions that arise out of base duality, i.e. positive and negative identification of perceptions with the ego. It is the way our mind works. The mind of animals likewise distinguishes between good and bad, although strictly at a non-conceptual stage. Humans have driven this distinction extremely far into the conceptual realm. Consequently, what exactly is perceived as “good” depends to a great degree on culturally formed values; it is thus for the greatest part illusionary.

Nick: Sure sin is an intellectual categorisation but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist also as an objective reality which is the natural tendency to "miss the mark".

Ultimately, there is no objective reality to sin. It is merely a naming convention for unskillful human behavior. Of course, you could say that in reality people are murdered, wars are fought, the planet is being plundered, and many more awful things are happening. Sure, all of this is very real, but that does not make the concept of “sin” any more real. These unfortunate happenings part of the unfolding universe; to the universe they don’t have such meaning. Good, bad, and sin have meaning only to human beings. We don’t want sin, because we know that sin causes suffering, and we don’t want to suffer.

Nick: Maybe our being must change, re-birth, before we can think of reestablishing a contact with God.

No physical transformation is required for this. Because we already have the Buddha nature, we only need to realize it. Though this may be not as easy as it sounds.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

The Game of Metaphysics continues...



what metaphysics?

bito gaming metaphysics?

[bito]

what metaphysics?

bito gaming metaphysics?

Yes, asheera, this is what I have been doing. No longer. I realized yesterday, shortly after I posted, that my desire to keep myself separate from God is crumbling like a 10,000 thousand year old brick in a damp basement.

[sahyo]

:applause:

:loveyou:

[Nick_A]

Hello Thomas

What St. Paul describes is a condition of split being resulting from wrongful identification.

As I understand identification, it is when you lose your presence and become what you are identified with. I don't get the idea that since Paul is seeing himself, that he is identified with it. I see it as a healthy state to become aware of oneself.

From the gospel of Thomas:

3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

It seems clear to me that the message is to know yourself so that the knower can be known.

The mind is warring war against the body.

At times, but you have yet to witness one of my intense struggles with the truly demonic chocolate chip cookie. Regardless of my mind wanting to avoid consuming this demonic entity, my body demands it in order to invite its master to take up residence, the even greater demon known as the dreaded "five pounds". While getting help from certain emotions of self justification, it often wins. :)

Making the inside outside and the outside inside is accomplished by opening up consciousness, thus letting the world in, and vice versa by allowing the spirit to flow out into the world, which comes with the realization that there is no real difference between the inner and outer world. Unifying the above and below means rising above quantitative differences (which are often falsely perceived as qualitative differences
Here I would have to respectfully disagree. One thing that I have come to believe is that the universe exists cosmologically, as a scale of being which by definition is qualitative. The descending conscious influences from above originate at a higher level of quality or at a level more conscious and less mechanical, than the mechanical influences rising from below. I just can't see differences as purely quantitative; it just doesn't make sense to me.

Good and bad are attributions that arise out of base duality, i.e. positive and negative identification of perceptions with the ego. It is the way our mind works.
While I would agree as far as subjective good and evil, objectively in regards to Man, the good must be evolution towards inner unity and the "bad, must be what denies this aim.

In terms of universal need the eternal movements of both evolution and involution are equally necessary but regarding man on earth as a seed, its re-birth into itself, its "good", must be evolutionary.

We don’t want sin, because we know that sin causes suffering, and we don’t want to suffer.[/QUOTE

]Sin or samsara is the result of our hypnotic sleep. Granted it is an unnatural state but our susceptibility to it implies the nature of our being that is beyond just the desire to change. This is what I mean by objective. It has become a part of us that has gone beyond just a subjective attitude.

[QUOTE]No physical transformation is required for this. Because we already have the Buddha nature, we only need to realize it. Though this may be not as easy as it sounds.
1. Corinthians: 44

44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

It seems to be suggested here that an evolutionary change of being requires a different quality of materiality. Makes sense to me in the context of a qualitatively structured universe.

I find it very rewarding to be able to compare views like this.

Thanks

Nick

[Thomas Knierim]

As I understand identification, it is when you lose your presence and become what you are identified with. I don't get the idea that since Paul is seeing himself, that he is identified with it. I see it as a healthy state to become aware of oneself.

“Losing presence” describes it well. It is difficult for me to come to a conclusion about St. Paul, so I can only express my understanding of the short quotation you gave earlier. Maybe your assessment is based on a broader understanding of St. Paul. Basically it is this: there is no ‘law’ of the body that wages war against the ‘law’ of the mind. There may be behavior patterns that appear as such, but these are pathologic in nature. Examples would be addictions and psychological disorders. These can range anywhere from relatively harmless (such as the addiction to “demonic” chocolate chip cookies you mentioned) to rather serious, such as depression, sexual perversion, extreme hatred and aggression, etc., situations where the body-mind balance is disturbed.

In the quoted passage, St. Paul is not seeing himself. If he was looking at his true self, he would see the dharma body ("the body of Jesus"), not his physical body, and not his mind.

Here I would have to respectfully disagree. One thing that I have come to believe is that the universe exists cosmologically, as a scale of being which by definition is qualitative. The descending conscious influences from above originate at a higher level of quality or at a level more conscious and less mechanical, than the mechanical influences rising from below. I just can't see differences as purely quantitative; it just doesn't make sense to me.

I addressed the reduction of qualitative properties to quantitative properties, because it provides an intellectual tool to overcome base duality. This reduction is possible in the physical realm, i.e. when we speak about physical properties. For example, the qualities of hot and cold can be translated into quantitative differences of temperatures, the qualities of blue and red can be translated into quantitative differences of wave frequencies, and so on. High and low are simply different altitudes. The basic idea is that of relativity and you can –without much difficulty– apply the same concept of relativity to the social and psychological dimension.

While I would agree as far as subjective good and evil, objectively in regards to Man, the good must be evolution towards inner unity and the "bad, must be what denies this aim.

I am not sure about that. The “good” is often identified with the holy. It is identified with enlightenment. Is that really so? Or is enlightenment beyond it? The Buddha spoke of enlightened wisdom as the wisdom of the other shore. I think it means beyond / apart from the good and bad distinction. Of course, the discussion about good and bad is very tricky, because we have literally no choice but to distinguish. For example, people think of material wealth, physical health, power and influence as good qualities and who would disagree? But these are merely conditions. They are unrelated to and unimportant to enlightenment.

It seems to be suggested here that an evolutionary change of being requires a different quality of materiality. Makes sense to me in the context of a qualitatively structured universe.

I am afraid I don’t understand this part. Can you explain?

Cheers, Thomas

[Nick_A]

In the quoted passage, St. Paul is not seeing himself. If he was looking at his true self, he would see the dharma body ("the body of Jesus"), not his physical body, and not his mind.

This is, I believe, our essential disagreement. I believe that a person comes to see their nothingness which is the beginning of the gradual creation of the soul which unites the higher with the lower. I know what you suggest is very popular in this day and age but I must disagree.

2 Corinthians 11:

13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

We are open to both deception from others and self deception as to our being. this deception is very beautiful. I believe it is natural to want to overestimate ourselves but in the long run, denies us what we are seeking.

I am afraid I don’t understand this part. Can you explain?

Meister Eckhart:

The seed of God is in us. Pear seeds grow pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God seeds into God.

I believe we are a seed that can grow into the image of the creator. We are basically an acorn that can become an oak.

My readings have lead me to believe that the universe consists of seven basic cosmoses with God being the highest and in which everything else exists analogous to circles existing within circles. The life of each cosmos is a combination of consciousness and the interactions of mechanical law. The higher the cosmos, the greater the consciousness. Each cosmos has a density of matter appropriate for the quality of spirit that exists within it. The more mechanical law means that there is less consciousness. within a cosmos.

Man on earth, as a seed, has a material existence for the earth as a cosmos. However, through conscious evolution would be able to exist as higher life natural for a higher cosmos. This would include a higher degree of consciousness and a physical materiality less in density, appropriate for this higher cosmos. Man at this level would be in the image of the creator.

[Thomas Knierim]

This is, I believe, our essential disagreement. I believe that a person comes to see their nothingness which is the beginning of the gradual creation of the soul which unites the higher with the lower. I know what you suggest is very popular in this day and age but I must disagree.

Now I am baffled. The recognition of one's nothingness creates the soul? :think: Frankly, I don't know whether there is a soul or not. I think this is highly speculative matter. But I know that there is the dharma body (dharmakaya), and that it is accessible; it is an aspect of reality that can be experienced. You don't need to call it dharmakaya. It has a hundred names. It is emptiness itself, potentiality, the unmanifested from which everything springs. Consciousness itself rests in the dharmakaya realm.

We are open to both deception from others and self deception as to our being. this deception is very beautiful. I believe it is natural to want to overestimate ourselves but in the long run, denies us what we are seeking.

The task is to uncover the depth of the deception. It is not only the ego, the self, but the entire breadth of human conditioning. Culture, values, language, names, beliefs, science, all of this has the potential for deception.

I believe we are a seed that can grow into the image of the creator. We are basically an acorn that can become an oak.

Isn't it more like an oak scion becoming an oak?

My readings have lead me to believe that the universe consists of seven basic cosmoses with God being the highest and in which everything else exists analogous to circles existing within circles.

Interesting. What readings are you refering to?

Cheers, Thomas

[Nick_A]

Hello Thomas, Thanks for the sincere post.

Is this what you mean by the dharma body?

http://selfknowledge.com/109716.htm

If the Buddha body is a body, it must be composed of materiality. I'm suggesting that this materiality is of a finer nature normal for a higher cosmos beyond our normal comprehension. The difference is that I do not believe it exists within us as a completed state but instead, only as a potential. It exists within us in an infantile state or a seed just as the kernel of the acorn exists within the husk as a seed. The acorn grows to become an oak if conditions are right but it is a mechanical process. The seed of man can change its being and transcend to become this Buddha body but it is a conscious process which man, living in as dream, in the state of "sleep" oblivious of himself and his potential, is incapable of.

It is all too easy to begin to become aware of our inner situation and believe that we can just awaken and experience this transformation. This just proves IMO how deep our sleep is. To have flashes of our potential is not at all the same as actualizing our potential.

I like this following letter since the author is unafraid to say it as it is even though it is a bit of a shock at first. Realizing our nothingness means our inability to be ourselves and our helplessness in front of it.. We are not able to connect the higher forces initiating from conscious sources with the mechanical evolving forces within ourselves. There is no presence, "soul" with which to do it.

First Initiation

By Jeanne de Salzmann

You will see that in life you receive exactly what you give. Your life is the mirror of what you are. It is in your image. You are passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without feeling any obligation. Your attitude toward the world and toward life is the attitude of one who has the right to make demands and to take, who has no need to pay or to earn. You believe that all things are your due, simply because it is you! All your blindness is there! None of this strikes your attention. And yet this is what keeps one world separate from another world.

You have no measure with which to measure yourselves. You live exclusively according to “I like” or “I don’t like,” you have no appreciation except for yourself. You recognize nothing above you—theoretically, logically, perhaps, but actually no. That is why you are demanding and continue to believe that everything is cheap and that you have enough in your pocket to buy everything you like. You recognize nothing above you, either outside yourself or inside. That is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live passively according to your likes and dislikes.

Yes, your “appreciation of yourself” blinds you. It is the biggest obstacle to a new life. You must be able to get over this obstacle, this threshold, before going further. This test divides men into two kinds: the “wheat” and the “chaff.” No matter how intelligent, how gifted, how brilliant a man may be, if he does not change his appreciation of himself, there will be no hope for an inner development, for a work toward self-knowledge, for a true becoming. He will remain such as he is all his life. The first requirement, the first condition, the first test for one who wishes to work on himself is to change his appreciation of himself. He must not imagine, not simply believe or think, but see things in himself which he has never seen before, see them actually. His appreciation will never be able to change as long as he sees nothing in himself. And in order to see, he must learn to see; this is the first initiation of man into self-knowledge.

First of all, he has to know what he must look at. When he knows, he must make efforts, keep his attention, look constantly with persistence. Only through maintaining his attention, and not forgetting to look, one day, perhaps, he will be able to see. If he sees one time he can see a second time, and if that continues he will no longer be able not to see. This is the state to be looked for, it is the aim of our observation; it is from there that the true wish will be born, the irresistible wish to become: from cold we shall become warm, vibrant; we shall be touched by our reality.

Today we have nothing but the illusion of what we are. We think too highly of ourselves. We do not respect ourselves. In order to respect myself, I have to recognize a part in myself which is above the other parts, and my attitude toward this part should bear witness to the respect that I have for it. In this way I shall respect myself. And my relations with others will be governed by the same respect.

You must understand that all the other measures—talent, education, culture, genius—are changing measures, measures of detail. The only exact measure, the only unchanging, objective real measure is the measure of inner vision. I see—I see myself—by this, you have measured. With one higher real part, you have measured another lower part, also real. And this measure, defining by itself the role of each part, will lead you to respect for yourself.

But you will see that it is not easy. And it is not cheap. You must pay dearly. For bad payers, lazy people, parasites, no hope. You must pay, pay a lot, and pay immediately, pay in advance. Pay with yourself. By sincere, conscientious, disinterested efforts. The more you are prepared to pay without economizing, without cheating, without any falsification, the more you will receive. And from that time on you will become acquainted with your nature. And you will see all the tricks, all the dishonesties that your nature resorts to in order to avoid paying hard cash. Because you have to pay with your ready-made theories, with your rooted convictions, with your prejudices, your conventions, your “I like” and “I don’t like.” Without bargaining, honestly, without pretending. Trying “sincerely” to see as you offer your counterfeit money.

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others—lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions—lies. Your teaching—lies. Your theories, your art—lies. Your social life, your family life—lies. And what you think of yourself—lies also.

But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. Observe without preconceptions, accepting for a time this idea of lying. And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day. You will see that you are different from what you think you are. You will see that you are two. One who is not, but takes the place and plays the role of the other. And one who is, yet so weak, so insubstantial, that he no sooner appears than he immediately disappears. He cannot endure lies. The least lie makes him faint away. He does not struggle, he does not resist, he is defeated in advance. Learn to look until you have seen the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the lies, the deception in yourself. When you have seen your two natures, that day, in yourself, the truth will be born.

This is not easy!

I've come to believe that the next big break through in spiritual thought that will help in bringing together the normal balance of science and faith will come through a greater understanding of cosmology. Yet only a few are really aware of it and I'm surprised that many really cannot understand it. As far as a source to begin with, I'm going to post the following link to the first chapter of a book by Jacob Needleman: A Sense of the Cosmos; The Encounter of Modern Science and Ancient Truth (Doubleday.

It is reproduced for some reason on this site:

http://www.rawpaint.com/library/intro.html

Click on "Jacob Needleman's Chapter One: The Universe.

He is one of the few reputable ones that deal with such ideas that is widely known. You are obviously an educated man with spiritual interests and I'd be curious to learn if his conceptions of cosmology resonate with you.

[Thomas Knierim]

Greetings Nick,

Is this what you mean by the dharma body? http://selfknowledge.com/109716.htm

Well, as far as dictionary definitions go, this is not a bad one. Of course, like any dictionary definition, it is a little sketchy. Dharmakaya, the dharma body, must be seen within the Mahayana context of the trikaya (the Buddhist trinity), which is composed of dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya. Although the Sanskrit word ‘kaya’ means ‘body’ we are not talking about material bodies (therefore the term is slightly misleading), but about aspects of existence, which are not disparate and mutually exclusive, but always appear together. This may sound a bit conjectural to you, but it’s all a matter of perspective. If you get used to the terminology you may find it a useful description of reality. Pointing to the dharmakaya (or one of the other kayas) is in fact no more abstract than pointing to a tree. The trikaya triad renders more accurate descriptions than the classical Western mind/body duality. In Asia, the trikaya is often symbolized by Erawan, the three-headed elephant. The nirmanakaya is the manifested, the world of forms, energies, and phenomena; it is marked by impermanence and impurity. Sambhogakaya is the subtle, lucent, clear, blissful quality of existence that accompanies the nirmanakaya; it resembles the first, but is without impermanence and impurity. Dharmakaya is the ground of both, the unmanifested, the potentiality of existence from which samboghakaya and nirmanakaya originate.

All three aspects are present in the human mind. I previously called them ‘accessible’, because it possible to experience them just there – in the mind. The nirmanakaya comprises physical phenomena, or respectively the corresponding sense perceptions which arise in the mind upon contact with them. Since these are everyday experiences, hardly anyone would doubt their reality. The mode of ordinary animal and human perception is determined by nirmanakaya. Feelings, identifications, emotions, and thought are also within the nirmanakaya dimension. Sambhogakaya is the dimension of bliss, intuition, and effortless understanding. It is a relatively “high” sphere of the mind which –unlike nirmanakaya- we cannot access at will. The intellect makes use of it; in fact it must, because without sambhogakaya there would be no intellect. Plato’s world of ideas and Kant’s “a priori” belong into this category, as well as mathematical premises and that which speaks to us in art and music (beauty, refinement, etc.). We could describe it as “that which dazzles”. Think of the “aha!” experience of sudden understanding which sometimes occurs after poring over a complicated issue. Finally, the dharmakaya is consciousness itself. It is that which gives all mental events space. Dharmakaya is usually covered by thoughts and other mind content, so it is not directly visible. When the mind becomes still, however, it is possible to observe the silence between mental events. That is dharmakaya. Then there is a thought or a perception, created out of nothing. That’s also dharmakaya. Dharmakaya is pure creativity, things just pop out of it. I think it is only possible to observe it indirectly, but I am far from being an experienced meditator, so I might have to defer judgment on the issue.

De Salzmann: But you will see that it is not easy. And it is not cheap. You must pay dearly. For bad payers, lazy people, parasites, no hope. You must pay, pay a lot, and pay immediately, pay in advance. Pay with yourself. By sincere, conscientious, disinterested efforts.

Hahaha! Yes, the price of honesty can be steep. I liked this article from Salzmann. Thanks for quoting it. Her observations touch upon the nerve of the consumer society. I think what she is getting at is the dismantling of the ego. The ego is network of lies, so its dismantling is requisite. Maybe it’s tolerable to have a big ego when you are twenty something. By the age of forty it becomes an embarrassment and worse, a hindrance. If until now you have built your life on what your ego says you should do, enjoy, and acquire – well, that’s bad luck. You must forget it all. You must throw it all away. That’s what Salzmann means with “paying dearly”. But the truth is, all these things are junk anyway, so you’re not really losing anything. Perhaps it is a boring job, a dysfunctional relationship, a mortgaged house, shallow friendships, an unsatisfactory lifestyle. Maybe you have once worked hard and paid dearly for it. But these are only dollar figures and past clock time hours. It’s not important anymore. It’s deadweight – it has to go.

By the way, De Salzmann told us only half of the truth. The danger lies not exclusively in adopting an inflated self-image. Granted, it is more common, but the ego can also go the other way. It can deflate a person to become a shrivel of self-pity, sluggishness, and depression. Which is just as false and obstructive.

You are obviously an educated man with spiritual interests and I'd be curious to learn if his conceptions of cosmology resonate with you.

My education is probably quite average. I don’t even have a university degree. :-) What concerns Needleman’s essays – I read two of them and they resonate, albeit in a strange way. It’s more like the ring of an unfamiliar instrument, something that I also perceive in your writings. It’s original and mildly confusing, but interesting. Maybe it is just a different perspective, a different frame of reference, from which we look on to the same unfolding phenomena. As you might have guessed, I can relate to what Needleman said about the man/universe relation. The “spacetime” section on thebigview.com looks at the same topic, although in less metaphysical terms.

Cheers, Thomas

[Nick_A]

Hello Thomas

I heard recently that a group of people seriously involved with esoteric Christianity were in the company of assistants to the Dalai Lama. The question was asked to one of his assistants as to what they thought of the esoteric Christianity being spoken of during conversation. The assistant said that esoteric Christianity and esoteric Buddhism are basically the same.

I've been reading this site on the trikaya

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/trikaya.htm

It reminds me very much of the Law of Three forces which is one of the two fundamental laws of world creation; the other being the Law of Octaves spoken of by Pythagoras but known long before.

The trikaya triad reminds me very much of the wonderful way I've been able to appreciate this law of Three Forces not just as one triad but as the eternal movement of connected triads. Each individual "thing" is a combination of these three forces that vary in their "quality". Each creation is a combination of the "active" force (asserts) met by the passive force (denies) and blended together in the third force that (reconciles) the two This description is as follows:

"............: the higher blends with the lower in order to actualize the middle and thus becomes higher for the preceding lower, or lower for the succeeding higher........"

Each force can assume either role depending on the nature of the triad.

To really appreciate this relationship it must be seen cosmologically which I read alluded to in the posted site.

This is why so few understand the real meaning of the Trinity in Christianity. As I've come to understand it in my own ponderings, as "ONE", the Father is ultimate unity met by the potential for ultimate diversity and reconciled through the Spirit of Wholeness which is the entire scale of relativity in-between. Both exist simultaneously beyond time and space.

In Creation, ultimate diversity changes from potential to an actualization and retains its existence as a kind of perpetual motion machine eternally transforming substances within it, sustained by these laws of creation.

Being that I believe that Man is a microcosm, I agree with what you are saying about the mind. Objective art itself is the conscious transmission of the means to "aha" as you so eloquently described.

By the way, De Salzmann told us only half of the truth. The danger lies not exclusively in adopting an inflated self-image. Granted, it is more common, but the ego can also go the other way. It can deflate a person to become a shrivel of self-pity, sluggishness, and depression. Which is just as false and obstructive.

Believe me this is known. It is the basis of the concept that infuriates a great many called "the joy of suffering"

"Another thing that people must sacrifice is their suffering. It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering. Man is made in such a way that he is never so much attached to anything as he is to his suffering. And it is necessary to be free from suffering. No one who is not free from suffering, who has not sacrificed his suffering, can work. Later on a great deal must be said about suffering. Nothing can be attained without suffering but at the same time one must begin by sacrificing suffering. Now, decipher what this means."

What you described is a very common danger. It appears odd at first but a person draws self justification and self importance from this suffering and there is a joy in this.

Now I know why you are making sense; you've successfully avoided University oppression. :) This is one reason I admire Prof. Needleman. During my years in college I never knew anyone of this depth of understanding.

I've always admired those that have gone beyond programming in the need to understand and were not deterred by the flack invariably received: the classic "black sheep".

One of my direct ancestors was an open minded archbishop in the 19th century. He had a warm friendly relationship with Madam Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy. I imagine they both got some flack but I am sure their level of conversation was beyond the appreciation of those around them. I know I would have loved to have witnessed some of their discussions.

This is why I am so against all this "Christians do this or that" reasoning. Christianity exists on different levels that reflect the levels of being of man.

Esoteric Christianity like the esoteric sides of the other great traditions have levels. For example the esoteric circle consists of those that are Christians, become real Men. This circle exists within the mesoteric circle of people objectively working to become Christian. This relationship exists within the exoteric circle or outer circle where the vast majority of Mankind lives. It is this world of sleep where Christianity is imaginary. This is really why I refer to Christianity as Christendom. It is all we are capable of understanding as we are.

[Thomas Knierim]

Greetings Nick,

I heard recently that a group of people seriously involved with esoteric Christianity were in the company of assistants to the Dalai Lama. The question was asked to one of his assistants as to what they thought of the esoteric Christianity being spoken of during conversation. The assistant said that esoteric Christianity and esoteric Buddhism are basically the same.

Yes, you've hit upon something there. The esoteric movements within the world religions definitely have commonalities. These teachings are universal. For example, the idea that morality supports spiritual practice is universal. The idea of surpassing the self and of transcendental experience is likewise universal. These take different forms within the different traditions, but those who understand the meaning behind the words can probably abstract from the concrete forms. That which cannot be expressed is more important than that which can be expressed. I would think that a Hindu or a Buddhist with an esoteric understanding can relate to Christian mysticism, the story of Jesus, and Gnosticism, for example. Christians might relate to some of the ideas expressed in the Baghavad Gita, the Suttas, or the Qur'an. Conflict and misunderstandings arise only because religions become externalized, ritualized, and fragmented. When spiritual essence turns into dogma and ritual, all is lost. - People start to perceive their religion as an external form and identify with it. Once they identify with the external form, they use it to separate themselves mentally from other traditions and thus from other people. Illusionary notions of separation arise, such as different gods, different truths, different customs. Further down the road this results into aversion, and ultimately into hatred and violence, as many examples in history have shown. As an illustration of "spiritual seperatism" , look at this text from the theologian Tom Bosse advertising his book "Unveiling the Trinity" (http://www.tuvott.com/):

What do the five religions portrayed symbolically above have in common? Four of them do not believe in the Trinity. Three of them were founded by a man. Two of them worship the same God. Only one of them can be the true way to God. Do you know which is which? You should; your eternal life depends on it. This book, "The Unveiling of the Trinity," takes you on a step-by-step journey to verify the fact of the Trinity. After reading this book you will agree that the Trinity rates as the most important of all topics concerning mankind.

This is an (unenlightened) example of creating divsions using (arbitrarily) the concept of Trinity. Apparently the author is unaware of parallel ideas that exist within other traditions. In addition, he makes the classical mistake of offering another "true way to God". The problem is not only that there are many paths, that none of the is intrinsically superior, but that truth is basically pathless, as Krishnamurti once explained so eloquently in 'Freedom from the Known'. - Truth just is.

So, the trick is to look beyond the words and external forms and to look with the heart, not the mind.

This is why so few understand the real meaning of the Trinity in Christianity. As I've come to understand it in my own ponderings, as "ONE", the Father is ultimate unity met by the potential for ultimate diversity and reconciled through the Spirit of Wholeness which is the entire scale of relativity in-between. Both exist simultaneously beyond time and space.

The Christian Trinity is a very refined idea. Most people think of it as The Father = God, the Son = Jesus and the Holy Spirit = God's spirit. This is an externalized view and as such not very useful. One must look at it in the context of its origin around the time of Plotinus, when Stoicism and Platonism were strong philosophical currents in Europe. It seems to me that the Trinity sprang out of the conception of Theos, Nous, and Logos, which are basically Greek (some of these terms are discussed in the Greek Philosophy section of thebigview.com). They can be understood ontologically as aspects of being, not unlike the Buddhist trikaya. Sogyal Rinpoche has made a very interesting comparison between the Trinity and the trikaya, the latter being an important teaching for the Tibetans, in the later chapters of his book 'The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying'. If understood in such way, i.e. if understood in its wider ontological meaning, it is indeed a key to many of the more enigmatic sayings of Jesus.

Now I know why you are making sense; you've successfully avoided University oppression.

Hahaha! Not quite... I studied several subjects at German universities for a total period of four years. I just never bothered to bring this effort to its logical conclusion - a degree. This time was marked by crowded lecture halls, numerus clausus, pressure for performance, and indifferent professors. I can't say that I have learned anything useful during this period, or better the little useful I learned was from books that I read aside from the university program. Most people just attended university to get the degree paper. A complete waste of time. Hopefully German universities have changed in the meantime.

Cheers, Thomas