Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 252 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 45 of 120 < 1 2 ... 43 44 45 46 47 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#27957 - 10/07/08 04:21 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Yes, one of my assistant ministers was deep into TM. So were several of my congregants. They all said that my classes in pneumatology, with its emphasis on meditation on "connecting with and tuning into" GOD--not pleading with a reluctant god to answer our prayers--were on the same path.

My critique of the Maharishi was his selling those so-called "secret" mantras, which are well known Sanskrit words to all those who take the time to look.

ABOUT JOHN 17:20-26: Then who are the "them" "those" "they" and "us" mentioned in the whole passage, to the end of the chapter? In Luke, Jesus said: "I am among you as one that serves."

My suggestion is that all of who are truly interested in spirituality need to stop this casuistry--clever but false reasoning, the art of splitting hairs--which only gives more power to the ego. Let us focus on spirituality.

Like Iehe points out
Quote:
When ego replaces spirit, religion replaces spirituality.
BTW, Iehe, I basically agree with you and do not need to cling to the word.

But keep in mind: IMO, an ego-dominated religion is a sick religion--or way of life. Can there be such a thing as a sick kind of spirituality?


Edited by Revlgking (10/07/08 04:28 AM)

Top
.
#27958 - 10/07/08 07:02 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Yes, one of my assistant ministers was deep into TM. So were several of my congregants. They all said that my classes in pneumatology, with its emphasis on meditation on "connecting with and tuning into" GOD--not pleading with a reluctant god to answer our prayers--were on the same path.

My critique of the Maharishi was his selling those so-called "secret" mantras, which are well known Sanskrit words to all those who take the time to look.

Ah, so you compared notes with those who had their own opinions about the Maharishi rather than actually immersing yourself in Maharishi and his Teachings.
That put things into perspective.
I suppose the discovery of some similarities in the idea that God is not a person or thing with expectations would give someone a feeling or idea of possibly knowing everything about The Maharishi and his teaching... confused

I was hoping when you said you met Maharishi that we could actually have a conversation regarding the way of a Guru.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

ABOUT JOHN 17:20-26: Then who are the "them" "those" "they" and "us" mentioned in the whole passage, to the end of the chapter? In Luke, Jesus said: "I am among you as one that serves."


20 And he (John) confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

21 And they (priests and Levites) asked him (John), What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

22 Then said they (priests and Levites) unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them (voice of the crowd, Jews of Jerusalem given authority by their self appointed mastery, [the pharisees] who wanted proof of the reality of the prophet and his message of the Christed one) that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

I don't get how you interpret these passages to mean: "he does not come on as a master looking for subjects but as another voice in the chorus."

Basically the story speaks of the messenger John spreading the word of the coming of the Master Jesus who won't add to the chorus of doubt, fear superstition and suspicion that man has in regard to God in the scriptures, but will by his example lead thru the baptism of fire, or in simple language, "Lead the heart of ripe souls through the illusions of ego by burning the illusions with truth like turning on a light in a dark room to expose what is really there."
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

My suggestion is that all of who are truly interested in spirituality need to stop this casuistry--clever but false reasoning, the art of splitting hairs--which only gives more power to the ego. Let us focus on spirituality.


Comprehension of reality and the ability to understand language of spirituality would be tantamount to being able to focus on it.
That would necessarily mean that personalizing truth and making it democratic would not be spiritual but religious in nature.

As I said before knowing God is part and parcel to living in God's world as a God conscious being in the Now.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Like Iehe points out
Quote:
When ego replaces spirit, religion replaces spirituality.
BTW, Iehe, I basically agree with you and do not need to cling to the word.

But keep in mind: IMO, an ego-dominated religion is a sick religion--or way of life. Can there be such a thing as a sick kind of spirituality?

If the ego is twisting truth and thru belief and supposition it becomes personal rather than universal it is not True spirituality, but a delusion created in limitation and separation from the experience of the "One".
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27960 - 10/07/08 06:21 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Luke 22:27
"For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves."


Now let's look at the paragraph in which it is used so as not to personalize it like a religious sermon with an egoic agenda.

Who Is Greatest
24And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest.

25And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'

26"But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.

27"For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But )I am among you as the one who serves.


28"You are those who have stood by Me in My trials;

29and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you

30that you may eat and drink at My table in My (kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Quote:
Luke 22:27
"For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves."


During the "Last Supper" Jesus' disciples began to argue as to who would be taking over as head of the group. Jesus had told them that he would be leaving them but they had not yet grasped the full picture of how that was to unfold. They thought only that he was to go somewhere else to minister and to leave them behind with his teaching, but they had no idea about Judas and his having turned the location of Jesus over to the Pharisees, nor their command and decree that he be put to death because he was a threat to their opulent egoic title and power.

While they were arguing over who would be left in charge. Jesus told them in order to be a great teacher they would have to be different than the kings of the gentiles who seek to rule the people and the earth, or even the spiritually unconscious authorities of God and spirituality such as the Pharisees who might unjustly hold the title of benefactor or representative of God.
He said to his disciples that they serve differently than those who think they rule over people and their spirit, or represent the spirit of God without the experience of God.
The greatest must become like the youngest (innocent), without preconceived ideas about how one serves in the capacity of God. This is the only way one can live in surrender and service.

"For who is greater, one who reclines at the Table of God in full human consciousness or one who is serving mankind working towards liberation from the trials and tribulations of evolution that is of lesser choices made from illusions of the ego?
Is it not better to sit in Full Human Consciousness at the Table of God? Yet here I am sitting here with you who are in service to humanity burning the last of your Karma which keeps you bound to the physical realities of man and duality."

The subtle message to the disciples is that he was sent (Incarnated) not by karma of ego, but of surrender and service to the will of God (the natural direction of spiritual evolution that is inherent in all paths that circle or unknowingly are created to move away from knowledge of spirit by unconscious choice of the ego) or the continuous expansion of consciousness and spirit which is Love.

He was also saying that while they argue over who was greater and how one serves as a Guru (destroyer of ignorance), or leader of people seeking to rise above the ego, is to serve in the same capacity that he did by becoming United in Universal Consciousness that is the Atonement, or Christed Consciousness.

To live perfectly in the Now the world of the ego must die within them, not linger and pollute the mind with the attachment to position and title or the identification of any other human limitation which creates suffering.


It's still not out of your reach, to dissolve the illusions of those past tendencies so you don't have to continue playing them out Rev.

That'd be part and parcel to the theme of Jesus' teaching. Rather than singing a song of change, one actually has to do it.
Then, one might be of service to others, in whatever capacity is necessary.
That capacity cannot be known if the ego prevents one from uniting with the consciousness of another so as to help one circumvent the illusions of past Karma.
An unconscious person cannot separate the beliefs of one from another, they all become intertwined in the confusion of egoic identification of mortality as fear and limitation.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27961 - 10/07/08 10:37 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Quote:
I was hoping when you said you met Maharishi that we could actually have a conversation regarding the way of a Guru.
I met the Maharishi in 1964. A friend, who took the first pneumatology course I gave that spring, invited me to hear him speak. A group of about 100 listened to him.

It was a one-way and boring presentation. Neither my friend or I were impressed. Both of us had the feeling he was selling verbal snake oil. That evening, his offer was: For $75.00--a lot of money in 1964--we could be initiated and buy our "secret" mantra. I paid $2.00 for the boring lecture. IMO, a waste of money. Interestingly, with some research I later I found that my TM mantra is SHIRIM (for those 30-35). Send me a PM and, for a big fee--just joe king, the name of my eldest brother-- I will send you yours.

Yes--as I found out by doing some personal research--IMO, TM, like Scientology--Now there's a topic worth of exploration--Christian Science and the like, is based on certain basic and valuable principles. But why the secrecy and the commercialization? in offering basic spiritual principles to people?

THE ROLE OF MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKERS
BTW, I appreciate that motivational speakers need to earn a living. This is how I earned my living. And no regrets.

BTW 2, as a minister, for 40 years, I spoke to large audiences every Sunday. In addition, I spoke to smaller groups and gave many hours of personal counseling. I was, and still am, one who, like Eckhart Tolle, approached my work with the intention of motivating people to be integrated in soma/psyche/pneuma.
My salary? Over the years I kept pace with policemen with seven years experience. When my wife went back to teaching, she earned almost. Her income made all the difference in our standard of
living. So much for those who think that the "clergy racket" is a good one.

BTW, are you familiar with the fact that, in Canada, TM followers formed the Natural Law Party, and spent millions running candidates in 1993 Canadian federal elections?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law_Party_of_Canada
In general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law_Party

Lots to dialogue about, eh?


Top
#27963 - 10/08/08 03:59 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Lots to dialogue about, eh?



Well yes and no.
The basic mechanics of TM are not taught in the open lectures. So if one hasn't taken the time to learn and become familiar with the simple mechanical approach to the underlying field of presence, as you enjoy from Tolle's writings, then it stands to reason that you were not actually familiar with Maharishi's teaching but familiar with possibly an opinion made by someone else. From what you said you took for granted everything of another's experience to call it your own. You took an idea from another, who made a judgment call without actually applying the tools as they were taught, and from that made a judgment of the teaching.


One of the most common objections is the money.

There is a saying: "Place no idols before God"

The ego thinks everything should be given without any investment or commitment. Like a lazy man who wants to be paid for doing little or nothing spirituality is shunned if it involves giving up anything that is revered as holy to the ego. That would be money. The ego values it's worth not only by comparing itself to others but it values itself according to the standard of material wealth, and it also sees sacrifice, such as martyrdom as noble.
So a large majority of spiritual wannabes approach their spirituality with a chip on their shoulder, angry at the idea of there being a God that would treat humanity the way it is in its suffering of victims and uncertain futures, eager to prove itself worthy if not better than any divine host.

A True Guru (destroyer of ignorance) is not giving out handouts to those who are not capable of making a commitment nor desirous of eliminating the very habits and attachments that support the ego. (The "Cast ye no pearls before swine kinda thinking")

It is a fact that an extremely small percentage of humanity is ready to actually give up their ego. The rest either don't care to know anything about spirituality or think they already know enough about it to avoid having to give up anything at all.
They are like those who think to themselves, "everyone else has made this same approach to spirituality and enlightenment without any experience of God and any real lasting results, but if I do it something different is going to happen."

The reality is that the ego will absolutely not surrender itself to anything that it is threatened by. And you just might happen to fall into that category.
When a Guru speaks of the Truth, the ego revolts.

I find you still have no experience of the Atonement and of God, and have little knowledge of the meaning of scripture.
From my experience, everything so far that you have tried to adorn yourself with is the experience of self title and self measure.
Your defense of ego and any justification in keeping it for as long as you need it, speaks as evidence to the ambiguous ideals that have morphed and changed according to how you perceive yourself and the definitions of reality that are your religious convictions and beliefs.

The fact that you found Maharishi boring and that you think the Sanskrit Mantra is just a word, only means you have an opinion of something you never tried or wasn't interested in because your interest lay somewhere else. Obviously your opinion has value to you and you may also think it has value for someone else, otherwise you wouldn't have so easily accepted your friends opinion and valued it as your own.

Such is the state of affairs with much of the world today, from spirituality to politics we often take meaning from what others say without engaging ourselves in the subject at hand. Creating a democratic approach to reality thinking I can't be wrong if everyone agrees with it. That is the nature of religion as it is understood and from that illusion the intellect moves outward into more illusion.

I think you will agree that if someone invests themselves in years of spiritual endeavors that are based on illusions that the time does not add up to the mastery of anything at all, but more of an illusion of investment that the ego thinks it ought to get some kind of credit for.
Sadly in the real world, and the world of duality this kind of self measurement fails to produce any results of lasting importance to anyone but the person clinging to the illusion.
When the person dies so does any importance that person measures themself by.


So in summary we don't seem to be able to discuss the nature of the Guru on even ground.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27964 - 10/08/08 05:11 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
TT, I presume you went through the TM program and initiation and became "enlightened".

Tell us, did you not learn that the use a lot of judgmental casuistry and sophism is not helpful to communication? Is the above a demonstration of what did learn? Now I know why The Natural Law Party flunked political science 101 !

TT, I think that the big difference between you and me is this: I am not enlightened, yet--and perhaps still quite ignorant of many things. However, I know that I don't know. Thank you Socrates! Sad that you were a victim of the know-it-alls.

BTW, were ever taught by Jesuits? I read that they have the reputation for being casuists.

Top
#27965 - 10/08/08 05:55 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TT, I presume you went through the TM program and initiation and became "enlightened".

That is presumptuous Rev. Care to make another projection from a state of non enlightenment and ignorance of many things? Knowing that you don't know and presuming is a bad habit.
Now might be a good time to break a bad habit. wink
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Tell us, did you not learn that the use a lot of judgmental casuistry and sophism is not helpful to communication? Is the above a demonstration of what did learn? Now I know why The Natural Law Party flunked political science 101 !

I can only say that if that is all you can hear, it's not my fault..
I don't see any reason to say what I know isn't truth. Or to try to find some fault in myself to make me better.

Can't imagine why it would be necessary for you...


Originally Posted By: Revlgking

TT, I think that the big difference between you and me is this: I am not enlightened, yet--and perhaps still quite ignorant of many things. However, I know that I don't know. Thank you Socrates! Sad that you were a victim of the know-it-alls.

Then it would stand to reason any judgment made from not knowing is hardly capable of differentiating Truth from reality. Such nobility gained from the illusions of ignorant humility would resist the truth as not only a threat to complacency but also cast judgment upon the truth that would take away the illusions of such nobility within the realm of ignorance.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

BTW, were ever taught by Jesuits? I read that they have the reputation for being casuists.

You really do have a distaste for anyone who might actually know the truth and anyone who won't fit into the mold you've created regarding what someone who might know should look and act like, don't you.
C'est la vie
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27969 - 10/08/08 12:13 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
Cosmology and the God Station.
===========.

First question: Where is “ The God Station ” ?
There are two answers:
a) in Infinity , and b) in everything.
So, what Infinity is.

What is infinity?
Abstraction or Reality?
Speculation or Fact ?
Does infinity have any physical parameters?
================..

The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not
be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.

Is this way correct?
=========..

My opinion.

The Universe is Infinite Vacuum in the state of T=0K,
at first of everything. Why? Because it is visual fact.

The Universe as whole is Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness
in a state of T=2,7K ( after big bang).
But this state is limited and temporary.
Why can it be limited and temporary ?
Because in the Universe astronomers found enormous spaces
without any material mass or energy it means these spaces in state
T=0K. Only mass and energy can warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot “ close “ the Universe and therefore
the Universe is “ open”, endless and this small mass can warm up the
Kingdom of Coldness only in it some limited and local points.
Therefore astrophysicists search for “ dark matter” because it will save the
“ law of gravitation “ as a first law of the Universe and it will
warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
#
The cosmological constant of Universe is zero or near to it.
This physical quantity cannot “ close” the Universe therefore
the Universe is endless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

==============..
P.S.
If somebody belief in “ big bang”, he must take in calculation
that T=2,7K expands and therefore T=2,7K is temporary
parameter and with time it will go to T=0K.
The spacetime of Vacuum T=0K is infinite parameter.

So, “ The God Station ” is hiding in Kingdom of Coldness: T=0K
…..
Etc.
=================…=========…

Top
#27971 - 10/08/08 12:44 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Quote:
You really do have a distaste for anyone who might actually know the truth...
I do? You sure have that wrong. As I have said, often: I do not know you--or anyone for that matter in virtual land--well enough to develop any personal affection or distaste. My basic feeling when I try to read much--not all, some of it is OK--of your stuff is frustration at the lack of clarity. Sometimes I feel amused, in a strange way.

Take note: I am doing what Tolle--and he is not the only one--teaches: Be honest with yourself, with others about how you feel about them. It is OK to politely disagree, agreeably. Treat circumstances in a similar manner. I do not enjoy weather that is too hot or two cold; I prepare for it, take it for what it is, and move on. I do the same with my physical and mental health.

BEWARE OF FRAUDULENT GURUS
It is OK to tell others how you honestly feel about the way they come across, how they communicate, to you. If they are wise it could help them be better communicators.

It is OK to acknowledge that you feel annoyed, pain and the like, and do not enjoy it. Jesus certainly told it like it is. He was not soft on hypocrites. He was no Pollyanna--cheerful to excess and to the point of foolishness. He was no fraud.

BTW, why the whining all of a sudden? Do I not distinctly remember reading that you could take it. HMmmmmmmm!!!! Seems I misread you. Or did I?


Top
#27972 - 10/08/08 12:58 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Oh, TT, I forgot to mention: I am still waiting, patiently, to read about this Truth you keep saying you have to offer. Is it a secret, or something? Like a TM mantra? And what is your mantra? Is it a higher kind than that of Jesus, EK, and others. smile

Me? Like my mantra, it is no secret that the only truth I have is my interpretation of it. I am also open and willing to learn from and hear the interpretations of others.

Top
#27973 - 10/08/08 02:41 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: socratus]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: socratus
Cosmology and the God Station.

First question: Where is “ The God Station ” ?
There are two answers:
a) in Infinity , and b) in everything.
So, what Infinity is....
The spacetime of Vacuum T=0K is infinite parameter.

... So, “ The God Station ” is hiding in Kingdom of Coldness: T=0K
Socratus, I like and LOVE it!!! I do not pretend to understand the maths of what you wrote, but I think I get the principle idea.

SOMA,PSYCHE & PNEUMA
In the NOW, this helps me understand more of what I feel Eckhart Tolle means when he speaks of the mind (psyche) and of how important it is for us, as spirits (pneumas) to be AWARE of what the body (soma) and the mind (psyche) are up to.

As I understand it, the mindpsyche is the source of our yes, no, and don't know to what is and experience. Instead of God Station, I use GOD--the Good, Orderly and Desireable.
IMHO, GOD is hiding in the coldness, including the chaos! I like it.

As I see it, our role, as humane, not just human, beings is to approach this coldness and chaos with the warmness of a rational faith, a positive hope and and a joyful love, originating in the Spirit (pneuma). Elsewhere I have added to Einstein's famous formula as follows: E=mc2 + ( F+ H) x L

BTW, using a simple hypnotic process it is possible to measure the FHL level of any individual. I have done it. I understand brain scanning can now be done to help us observe changes in areas of the brain (soma) having to do with character--a more effective lie detector perhaps?


Edited by Revlgking (10/08/08 02:54 PM)

Top
#27974 - 10/08/08 04:27 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Quote:
You really do have a distaste for anyone who might actually know the truth...
I do? You sure have that wrong. As I have said, often: I do not know you--or anyone for that matter in virtual land--well enough to develop any personal affection or distaste. My basic feeling when I try to read much--not all, some of it is OK--of your stuff is frustration at the lack of clarity. Sometimes I feel amused, in a strange way.

I can understand your frustration. That'd be ego. When you say you don't know everything and something comes across your path that you dislike, you follow your emotions and react.
Frustration at the lack of clarity is your disappointment that I do not meet you where you want me to, within the realms of your belief. Using Jesus as an example, he did not create standards of teaching where he would take his consciousness into the illusions of the ego so the ego wouldn't be frustrated, he simply stated the truth for those who were ready to leave the ego and frustration behind, and reach for something more enlivening to the soul.
As you agree he wasn't looking to sell himself or win a popularity contest.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Take note: I am doing what Tolle--and he is not the only one--teaches: Be honest with yourself, with others about how you feel about them. It is OK to politely disagree, agreeably. Treat circumstances in a similar manner. I do not enjoy weather that is too hot or two cold; I prepare for it, take it for what it is, and move on. I do the same with my physical and mental health.

Preparing for the weather that threatens the ego is what the ego does. Expressing your feelings is a good thing. Hanging on to them and using them to avoid what comes to you in life and then protecting yourself from feelings is not expanding toward the truth. For the ego the truth is solely attached to the emotions or good feelings.
Most people know that good feelings wrapped around personal ideals
is an inaccurate indicator of reality. A drug addict who finds good feelings in the drugs he or she takes last as long as the drug can keep its effects going. And as long as one keeps their dependency on the drug it is the threat of not having the drug or the drug wearing off or becoming immune to its effects that haunt the addict.
In similarity when the ego which is addicted to whatever makes it feel good or comfortable loses its aura of emotional support, it revolts. The intellect shuts down, the stress levels go up, the body goes into fight mode and the internal organs are starved of nutrients and oxygen as all of the blood is pumped into the muscles ready to fight.
This fight or flight mode is common in the reactions of emotional people. When someone crosses their path and cuts them off, they react and lose their peaceful feelings.
For the anal, this kind of constant pressure to keep things within a certain mental ideal can create so much stress as to cause rectal problems.. wink
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

BEWARE OF FRAUDULENT GURUS
It is OK to tell others how you honestly feel about the way they come across, how they communicate, to you. If they are wise it could help them be better communicators.

That is a nice idea, however when it comes to the truth, a wise person will not compromise the truth for someone who wishes the wise to change because the truth upsets them.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

It is OK to acknowledge that you feel annoyed, pain and the like, and do not enjoy it. Jesus certainly told it like it is. He was not soft on hypocrites. He was no Pollyanna--cheerful to excess and to the point of foolishness. He was no fraud.

That is true. He never compromised the truth for the feelings of the frustrated. And he spoke often in parables for those who could hear and see the truth leaving the emotionally attached with their frustration and hatred toward him intact. He never tried to better communicate with someone who wasn't emotionally ready to hear the truth or did not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the truth.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

BTW, why the whining all of a sudden? Do I not distinctly remember reading that you could take it. HMmmmmmmm!!!! Seems I misread you. Or did I?

You have always misread me.
As you said, you don't know me, and you do not know everything. wink

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Oh, TT, I forgot to mention: I am still waiting, patiently, to read about this Truth you keep saying you have to offer. Is it a secret, or something? Like a TM mantra? And what is your mantra? Is it a higher kind than that of Jesus, EK, and others. \:\)

Those with the eyes to see....
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Me? Like my mantra, it is no secret that the only truth I have is my interpretation of it. I am also open and willing to learn from and hear the interpretations of others.

Interpretive abilities are relative in the egoic world Rev.
It's the reason personality doesn't know everything. It only accepts what it believes in, and interprets reality strictly by what it can accept thru those beliefs. All the rest of the knowledge of the universe is in standby mode until those limiting beliefs are set aside.
You might try a mantra that would relieve you of strict interpretation. Anything ruled by bad habit (limitation) would cloud comprehension by stifling the intellect and the spirit.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27978 - 10/08/08 10:25 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
TURNING THE PAGE
Quote:
You have always misread me.
So you say, TT. And the feeling is mutual. Therefore, I will stop wasting the time of all of us here trying to understand sentences, even paragraphs and posts, which, IMO, are incomprehensible, and I will move on in the NOW. I cannot honestly say that it has been fun. It hasn't!

It is "just an experience of what is"--as Tolle would put it. As an old Kenny Rogers song, about playing cards, goes: "You got to know when to hold, know when to fold them ..." It is like knowing when to surrender. TT adds
Quote:
As you said, you don't know me (TT) ...
All I know is what I read in your posts--with not one item of bio. And, unless ... well, we will leave it at that. On to other things.

Top
#27979 - 10/08/08 10:45 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
THE VERSES BELOW, which I write as a personal poem-mantra, HAVE A SIMILAR RHYTHM TO THE THEME IN THE NEW WORLD SYMPHONY,BY DVORAK--Going home, going home.
THE CHORUS RHYTHM IS SIMILAR TO AN OLD GOSPEL TUNE--Jesus keep me near the cross,
which is hymn #485 in the old United Church Hymnary.
============================================================================
1. I am one, in the Now, where I choose to be;
In the Now, evermore and eternity.
And eternity!

CHORUS
In the Now, in the Now,
Is my joy forever;
Not beyond some golden strand
Just beyond the river.

2. I am one, in the Now, not across some sea;
In the now and evermore, where all beings be.
Where all beings be!

CHORUS
In the Now, in the Now,
Is my joy forever;
Not beyond some golden strand
Just beyond the river.

3. In the Now, in the Now, I've the power to sin,
I can live by fear and lose, or by love and win.
Or by love, and win!

CHORUS
In the Now, in the Now,
Is my joy forever;
Not beyond some golden strand
Just beyond the river.

4. GOD is one, in the Now, one with land, sky, sea,
GOD is one, in the Now, One with you and me;
One with you and me!

CHORUS
In the Now, in the Now,
Is my joy forever;
Not beyond some golden strand
Just beyond the river.
==========000=========
Posters: Feel free to make up your own verse and add to the poem.


Edited by Revlgking (10/08/08 10:46 PM)

Top
#27980 - 10/08/08 11:20 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
lehe Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 10/01/08
Posts: 12
Loc: New Mexico
Quote: Here, in summary, is what I hear him say: KNOWING HOW TO BE PRESENT IN THE NOW WILL DELIVER US FROM the EVIL of SUFFERING.

Hello again Revlking. What a joy to have this exchange with you. I, like you, am seeking internal truth daily. We are connected. I gave my “Power of Now” to a friend so I can’t reference the text you mentioned, but I will do my best to share my understanding of the NOW.

The value of the NOW is that it is the only thing we are in control of. We avoid it constantly with reflections and projections. To sit in the NOW implores a level of responsibility (literally the ability to respond), we are not all together comfortable with. In the NOW pain and suffering manifests along with the opportunity to be released from them. Pain and suffering in the absolute NOW is in the mind, and that is what the NOW delivers us to. Our mind, which is the root of all creation and/or mis-creation. It is the Alpha and the Omega.

To justify suffering as a spiritual path is only to say we are temporarily embracing the path away from spirit as a level of learning. So it is valuable only to the extent it is a path that will eventually be relinquished as useless. Albeit, we spend most of our time learning where spirit “isn’t”, deep down hoping it will save us from where it is…

it is in the NOW.

Back to the system that produces the stress and discomfort. In my work I refer to a Toggle as a means to shift perception. The first step to produce this shift is to pay attention to the pain and/or suffering in the NOW. As we focus on this moment we are primarily experiencing our mis-creation in the form of pain, tension or stress. The system generating these experiences of discomfort is the focus of my work. I refer to it as an energy field. Naming it helps to demystify it and we can more easily shift our attention to the actual experience of discomfort.

Spiritually speaking, the discomfort is the mis-creation itself, although the ego will tell you it is caused by circumstances outside us.
The energy field actually producing the discomfort actually has two functions. One is spiritual and the other is ego. Our choices, past and present, have determined which position the energy or emotions will take.

Love is the fuel which raises consciousness and unites us with creation while fear lowers consciousness and isolates us from each other.

Both experiences activate the intellectual responses of either gaining “insights and understanding” through love or building walls of “defense and justification” through fear.

The positive manifestation of the system is the experience of emotions like love, curiosity, delight, satisfaction, appreciation, contentment etc along with spiritual insight and spiritual power, while the negative expression produces emotions of fear, anger, depression, despair, irritability, physical tension and pain.

At the moment one puts their attention on the experience they access the opportunity for change, and it all happens in the NOW. Here, at this very moment, is where many new techniques are being developed to facilitate a shift from suffering and spiritual correction we call healing.

Obviously, I could go on, but I hate to over talk my welcome.
_________________________
Toggleit

Top
#27981 - 10/09/08 12:07 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TURNING THE PAGE
Quote:
You have always misread me.
So you say, TT. And the feeling is mutual.

No I have never misread your being in the Now. You don't know the now. I don't have to know anything about you to know that. All I have to know is the NOW.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Therefore, I will stop wasting the time of all of us here trying to understand sentences, even paragraphs and posts, which, IMO, are incomprehensible, and I will move on in the NOW. I cannot honestly say that it has been fun. It hasn't!

Of course not. If you are not living in the NOW life is painful.
It would be wonderful if you did move on to the NOW, that is pretty much the problem with all of your misunderstanding and frustration.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

It is "just an experience of what is"--as Tolle would put it. As an old Kenny Rogers song, about playing cards, goes: "You got to know when to hold, know when to fold them ..." It is like knowing when to surrender. TT adds
Quote:
As you said, you don't know me (TT) ...
All I know is what I read in your posts--with not one item of bio. And, unless ... well, we will leave it at that. On to other things.

You keep getting stuck in identity, it has never been about you and me or me and you. Biographies only point to systems of self measure and comparisons, where you've been how that defines you. You have been obsessed with who or what you or I am, rather than being in the NOW.
It never is about anything but the Now and that has little to do with the ego and what it labels as me and you and what your background is and how you rate according to where you have come from.

Being in the now is simple for an innocent child, but very difficult for the average octogenarian with so many self made ideals and beliefs. What little intuitive innocence that hasn't atrophied is filtered through years if not lifetimes of self measure and habit.

This conversation has been about being in the now. That is why you don't get it, or understand what is being said. You don't know the now/Truth.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27983 - 10/09/08 12:17 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: lehe]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
TT wrote to Rev;
Ah, so you compared notes with those who had their own opinions about the Maharishi rather than actually immersing yourself in Maharishi and his Teachings.
That put things into perspective.
I suppose the discovery of some similarities in the idea that God is not a person or thing with expectations would give someone a feeling or idea of possibly knowing everything about The Maharishi and his teaching...

TT- Is it necessary to have met someone in order to have some understanding of their philosphy? Surely the method Rev described is the method by which people learn of ideas and trends ie. by comparing notes---and presumably discussing and conducting personal research into the new ideas and assessing them. None of us can meet Gandhi, Confucius or Jesus but many think their ideas have merit and relevance.

I have to say that in this instance you have been hammering Rev with your own personal take on spirituality, which you obviously find revealing and beneficial. This is great for you, but others are still seeking the destination you seem to have found. However annoying we find Rev he seems to me to be one who is still seeking affirmation that his search for 'truth' is a valid one, and one which he will find ( or has found) the answers, which he now seeks to share. Just like you really.


Edited by Ellis (10/09/08 12:18 AM)
Edit Reason: Typo-spelling

Top
#27985 - 10/09/08 01:14 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Ellis


TT- Is it necessary to have met someone in order to have some understanding of their philosphy? Surely the method Rev described is the method by which people learn of ideas and trends ie. by comparing notes---and presumably discussing and conducting personal research into the new ideas and assessing them. None of us can meet Gandhi, Confucius or Jesus but many think their ideas have merit and relevance.

Following the idea of merit, does it make sense to discuss brain surgery if you haven't studied it or practiced it? Would the conversation be anything more than speculation?

The mechanics of moving the awareness inward are pretty much the same for any valid teaching using a useful set of tools that work. Over the centuries there have been many teachings of this process with many names. Also over the many centuries there have been many religions speculating the relationship of spirit to the manifest from the intellect but not from direct experience.
These discussions often branch off into democratic cliques similar to the way freedom of religious belief branches into the many churches and their names complete with judgment and hollow claims to the effect that comparison and majority creates authority.

If the Reverend wants to discredit the Maharishi and his Teaching without having spent time with him or with an understanding of his teaching he is more than welcome to do that as his choice. But in all reality would you allow someone to operate on your brain who has only met a brain surgeon and has only talked about brain surgery with others, and one who didn't think much of the brain surgeon he met in the first place because he cast judgment around the surgeon from surface appearances and personal beliefs?
Is this the normal way to learn, from others who make assumptions or to assume knowledge from another without direct experience?
Originally Posted By: Ellis

I have to say that in this instance you have been hammering Rev with your own personal take on spirituality, which you obviously find revealing and beneficial. This is great for you, but others are still seeking the destination you seem to have found. However annoying we find Rev he seems to me to be one who is still seeking affirmation that his search for 'truth' is a valid one, and one which he will find ( or has found) the answers, which he now seeks to share. Just like you really.


Well no, not like me really.
If he seeks affirmation from one who knows and his ideas are incorrect should the one who knows say, "Why Yes, that is correct," and mislead the Rev.? I haven't been hammering him with anything but the facts. He makes assumptions and projects from limited knowledge of what he has said about the NOW and God, and I have responded quickly and without hesitation from the knowledge that projecting from an idea not backed with experience is illusion, especially when it is projected upon someone who knows better. If he didn't want me to engage him he wouldn't have responded to me as he did.
He wants me to prove I know better regardless of whether he is projecting or not, diverting the attention from his own weak foundation of belief. And he wants a biography so he can judge whether the truth is worthy based on who it comes from.
You see I experience the Rev, a bit differently. He seeks companionship in his own affirmations of his chosen path. Without something greater in experience and understanding, no one will give up their beliefs for an idea that escapes them due to lack of experience.
The Rev. has fit the word NOW into his poetic framework of self identification but just because he has, doesn't mean he knows what it is.
Obviously this has been the case in Religions all over the world and in all of history. People of all beliefs have used the manipulation of affirmations to try and protect their truth in the face of opposition. It's just an egoic defense mechanism.

The Rev. says he's open to learn but I have offered him some insight to the reality that he is only open to accept what he feels fits within his expectations of what God is and how it feels to him. So far he hasn't been able to give up anything he clings to that might take from his sense of self worth and identity of self/ego. He demands proof first before he will give up his beliefs.
This is understandable but not so much when a person admits their beliefs are from the lack of experience and knowledge. It doesn't make sense really to fight so hard for something even when your beliefs are constantly changing and morphing into something else.
A Chameleon uses this type of behavior for protection from its natural predators. The ego uses it to keep from being annihilated.

For anyone who has invested years into belief and, making assumptions of God without the actual experience of God, it can be a great blow to the ego to discover everything you believe in is built on shaky ground.

Freedom of the NOW is far beyond the need of affirmations from the outside. Being able to choose for the Now takes all the power of God and puts it right where you are (once you Know God).
One way is Self/Consciously supportive from the awareness of truth and comes from the inside (from God).
The other is co-dependent and is addicted to the feelings created by the limited support of others and the projections of God in a relative unity in belief as a moral majority.

Once such a support system is removed, there is no real ground to stand on.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27986 - 10/09/08 04:13 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
It is possible to discuss brain surgery without a great understanding of the nature of the brain. Performing surgery may need high expertise but it is possible for a lay person to understand what is involved. We all have some understanding of living- I mean here, as in the state of being alive, though we would all have different ways to express our experiences of life. None are right, correct or the only answer. Similarly I feel that your conclusion regarding the ultimate reality is merely one opinion. You state:

"For anyone who has invested years into belief and, making assumptions of God without the actual experience of God, it can be a great blow to the ego to discover everything you believe in is built on shaky ground."

And for certain that could be so. However it is possible that another person making the same journey may have come to a different conclusion, as a person's experience of god is different for each one, and some belief may be rock-solid but flawed.

Whilst the certainty that is shown by those who believe that they have achieved ultimate reality, or truth or revelation is enviable, it may in fact be no more verifiable than disbelief, and therefore have no more validity in argument (no matter how irritating the antagonist). After all who is to define the "shaky ground"?




Edited by Ellis (10/09/08 04:14 AM)
Edit Reason: spelling again!

Top
#27987 - 10/09/08 04:44 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
INTERESTING DISCUSSION
Iehe and Ellis: Thanks for input. I found your comments objective and helpful, which, as it is now late, I will comment on later.

BTW, I just came back from a busy and interesting evening with my wife and our 52 year old daughter, Catherine--the one who lives in/on a floating house and introduced me to Tolle's work, last year when we visited her. An Artist, she lives with here artist husband near Tofino, BC. She is now here in the Toronto area on a visit. What a treat!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDqbfiejLdM

The three of us went to hear and dance to the music of her 49 year old brother, our son--one half of a guitar and sax duo--who has a weekly gig at a nightclub not far from where we live in Thornhill.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
Page 45 of 120 < 1 2 ... 43 44 45 46 47 ... 119 120 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.