Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours...

Posted by: Revlgking

Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours... - 08/04/08 10:42 PM

ONE AND ALL, Now that we are over 400,000 clicks in the last thread with a similar flavour to this one, consider the following:
=========================================================
ONE CURIOUS CANADIAN, IN A PRAYER--CONVERSATION WITH GOD--ONCE SUGGESTED TO GOD:
Okay God, you're really the one with all the answers, aren't you? If so, now that we have the Internet, why don't you set up your own Web Pages and give us the truth, as you know it. I for one will be all ears. You obviously know that I did some work in the media, eh? Therefore I have many, many questions.

The above is what I feel is an important question which was asked by a curious Canadian in a prayer-conversation he had with God, as he understood the concept.

As he walked away from his prayers--I mean, conversation with God--he thought to himself: I agree, we do need a new philosophy of theology, God and religion. I wonder what He...Or is it She?--has in mind? Perhaps the new thread will help reveal it, eh?.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, whose wants to go first? Atheists,agnostics, AND even cynics, welcome!
_____________________
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours... - 08/05/08 12:24 AM

Direct experience often takes a second place to speculative beliefs and the most intelligent imaginations, because without the experience imagination can't possibly validate the unknown.

Fortunately God doesn't need a philosophy to experience itself.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/05/08 12:56 AM

TT, good start. Now elaborate on what you mean, please!
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/05/08 02:45 AM

The problem with philosophies derived from lack of experience is that they perpetuate the lack of understanding and the lack of direction needed to commune with God.

Philosophies are created by belief and projection. Not from experience and understanding of the subject at hand.

Those who boast a direct experience of God such as Jesus or Gautama Buddha speak of their experience and have taken time to direct disciples to their own experience.
Those that have not achieved an experience make assumptions as to the meaning of these directions and to what they might experience if they understood what they were talking about.

Religions have taken a road of misunderstanding rather than understanding, because they are based on the original master who was in communion with God not the path of experience.
When Jesus told Paul he was going to build his church he did not mean any kind of building or religion but the teaching of direct experience.

Because of superstition, doubt, fear and even stupidity, those who followed the masters of truth because they were impressed with their presence of being always put the master on a pedestal not really understanding that they were people just like they were. The ego places its low self esteem and disbelief far ahead of the Truth and experience of those who actually experience God and the best they can do with their impressions of being in awe of a master is to create a philosophy and a belief which eventually becomes a religion of relative truths.
Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a bind person, both of them will fall into a hole."

So for the past Two thousand years there have been many new philosophies created from the quagmire of ignorance, and as a result of the continuum of ignorance the seeds of discontent spread out in search of new ideas, philosophies and religions.

If Jesus were to walk into a church today and make the claim that he was Jesus, he would most likely be scrutinized and chided just as he was by the non believers in his own time, asked for credentials, possibly to perform a miracle or ten like a circus animal, before the doubt would begin to loosen from the mind that has no experience of God or what it is like to be in communion with God.

For centuries, the Teachings of the masters, (the same teachings of Jesus and Buddha) have continued to push the ego to its limit of tolerance and superstition, always giving the ego just cause to make up on its own some philosophy that will leave its ignorance, arrogance and delusions fully intact, so that it will not have to admit that everything it stands for is false or illusion.

God is forever patient for man to put down his demands and his beliefs so that God may enter into mans heart. But Man insists on limiting God to a certain point of view and for God to meet man on his terms.

It is a very very old game and it never ends in God surrendering to mans ego.

So the praying Canadian is speaking to himself insisting that God come forward and remove the self created ignorance, and make everything better when the man has not the capacity to engage a valid method of communication because he doesn't know what that really is. More than likely his pride would prevent him from letting go of everything he believes in to begin in innocence.

Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

By disturbed it means that their projections will have failed to come close to the actual experience of communion with God.

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."
By clothes he meant attachment to identity of self or ego self. Children do not attach themselves to the identity of ego as solidly as adults do after years of self absorption in personality and belief.

Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom."

Those who have no philosophies or preconceived ideas to block direct contact with God.

All the italicized excerpts are from the Gospel of Thomas...
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/05/08 06:04 AM

TT said
' "Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom."
Those who have no philosophies or preconceived ideas to block direct contact with God.'

If you have faith that god exists and believe that he/she/it listens to prayer what more do you want, or need. The stories/dogma etc., as TT suggests, just create confusion and opposition.

Faith and belief are all that is needed for god to exist..... Now religion... well that's another very different thing.

Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/05/08 07:35 PM

GETTING THE JOKE
To get the joke, below, and the serious point which follows, one needs to know that, whether we do it or not, we Canadians have the reputation for ending many of our comments, especially ones to which we seek a response, with the interjection-like question, eh?
=================================
THE JOKE
One night, God listened to a certain lugubrious Canadian--who ironically, was often, also, ludicrous--saying his prayers, filled with lots of whining "ehs?".

When he finished, God asked him, "Why are you Canadians always so down on yourselves? You live in one of the best countries in the world and yet you seem to love to wallow in bad news. And you are always asking me questions like, why me, God?"

The Canadian said, "Don't you understand, it is because most of us are practical eh?theists..."

Atheists? shocked If you're an atheist, why are you saying your prayers then?", God asked, in a state of shock.

"No, I am not an atheist. Here, let me write it for you...EH?theist...There, see that? We may be whiners, but at least we have faith enough to think that you just might be there, or here, or both ... eh?

"I get it." God said, with a broad smile and a big laugh
=================================================

"I also get the hint." God said, "You want answers, and not just ones filled with a lot of doom and gloom, the kind which, too often, make the lead stories in all the media. I must say that there are times when even I question which side they are on. Yeah, they alway argue that they have to cover all the news--the good and the bad--and be as objective about it as possible. Give me a break!
They reminds me of the prophets of doom and gloom, especially that Jeremiah. Perhaps I need to tell them to cut it out.

Oh, Me! Oh, My! Jeremiah's book of LAMENTATIONS reads like he was the city editor of the Jerusalem Times, in 586 BCE. It is full of so much bad news.

"Yea! You're really the one with all the answers, aren't you? If so, now that we have the Internet, why don't you set up your own Web Pages and give us the truth as you know it. I for one will be all ears. You obviously know that I did some work in the media, eh?.

God said, "That's not a bad idea. Maybe it is time for me, using the Internet--web cams and all--to call together all the social leaders of the world--political, business and religious leaders, media moguls, educationalists, economists, unionists, philosophers, scientists, and the like, and put them together with all who claim to speak for me--all the synagogue, mosque, temple and church leaders.

Maybe they will be able hammer out a ... well let's go into details at another time

"BTW, God," I have one final question, for now: "God, where the #@%&^ are you speaking from, anyway, eh?

========================================
But seriously, we need a theology with a sense of humour, eh? Let's give thanks to God, G?d, G-d, G$d, or GOD for good humour. And for a theology which is not afraid to poke fun at itself, or to question Him? Or is it Her? smile
BTW, you secular atheists are free to call him/her "Nature". Or do you deny there is such a thing as "Nature"? Go ahead, I dare you! smile
I rather like the all-inclusive, "GØD", as in my signature, if you know what I mean.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/06/08 05:05 AM

Religion is humourless, but of course god, if you believe in a creator-force, has to be allowed a sense of humour, or at least a sense of the ridiculous or how else can human behaviour be explained?

Aren't humans the only creatures who laugh? (Hyenas and kookaburras merely make a noise we interpret as laughter.)
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/06/08 04:00 PM

Mark Twain said, "Human beings are the only animals who blush; or need to." smile

BTW, Ellis, when I say 'my religion' I think of it as including my theology, my philosophy of the god-concept and my moral and ethical behaviour. For me it would be convenient if there was more room to write a fuller title, like in BrainMeta. In BrainMeta, the thread-starter can also go back and edit the title--very convenient.
If you think of religion as being "humourless" you must have been exposed to a very dour kind of religion--the kind that is so heavenly minded that is of no earthly good. Always keep in mind, there are all kinds of religions.
================================
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/06/08 06:02 PM

I think she was making a point about religion being a package of ideas rather than any one of them being universal and applying to all.
When one says "my theology, my philosophy, my ethical or moral behavior, MY religion" and then goes on to make a comparison to another religion, philosophy, ethical and moral behaviors and beliefs, it becomes a package and a sales pitch.
Especially if they are making judgments regarding the earthly qualities of some elses choices and beliefs in comparison to their own.


So, in relation to the idea:
Quote:

we do need a new philosophy of theology, God and religion. I wonder what He...Or is it She?--has in mind?

The most obvious reality if you are wondering what God has in mind (if I may be master of the obvious) because you do not know Gods mind, is to commune with Gods mind before you jump to any conclusions or further tread the path of philosophical assumptions and projections regarding Gods creation.

If Your philosophy, your religion, your ethical and moral judgments about what is good in regards to Gods earthly creation are without the understanding of God's mind they are just self created projections. You would have to know God to know if what you make yours is actually Gods.

Creating another philosophy would seem like throwing another dart at the target while blindfolded, and not knowing if you are even facing the target.

Telling one about God without knowing Gods mind would be rather hollow don't you think? Then to create a philosophy around a personal assumption would be even more ridiculous.

Though it does often make people feel good to come together in a club like atmosphere where they can join together in what they agree upon and condemn all that they don't believe is part of their established truths, its still created from conjecture and belief rather than the actual experience of being in communion with God.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/06/08 06:50 PM

In the old thread (406,000 clicks)
Anon wrote:
Quote:
"...I'm new.
I believe that there is a "God" - if you will."


Anon, you may think that I am being an arrogant, impertinent know-it-all, when I say, "I now know there is GOD." But this is not my intention. To understand more fully the concept represented by the acronym I use, please google on unitheism and/or panentheism. Take note that I did not use the indefinite article, a. GOD, in my opinion, is beyond being categorized in any way, shape or form.

Having affirmed the above, what I readily admit it that, theologically speaking, there are many things I do not know about GOD. I certainly do not know what you and others mean when you say "God", but I am willing to listen.

All this kind of theological thinking comes under the general category of monotheism (theism, for short). By the way, I admit I was born, raised and educated as a theist...until my thirties. I also admit that I was never comfortable with the traditional theistic doctrines in which I was raised. Fortunately, I was raised in a religion, and studied at two church-related universities--One in New Brunswick ( http://www.mta.ca ) and one in Massachusetts, USA (Boston University) neither of which had as one of their commands: THOU SHALL NOT THINK FOR THYSELF. In fact, quite the opposite was true.

Looking back, I now feel I know what bothered me most about theism: It had to do with the doctrine of prayer. Although church leaders were expected to practice and promote the art of prayer I never felt comfortable with it.

THE ART OF PRAYER, ESPECIALLY THE PASTORAL PRAYER
==================================================
It was considered normal--still is in most religions--for people to speak to God in prayer, privately or publicly. As a minister (1953-1994), I was expected to address God and speak to Him, on behalf of the congregation, as if he was a person sitting there and listening to me, and to me alone, as I petitioned him to do this that and the other thing for the church and the world ... [MORE ON THIS LATER]

THE ART OF MEDITATION
=====================
My comfort level improved, immensely, when I went back to a method I first became aware of when I was a teen, when I studied a program called MENTALPHYSICS: It talked about MEDITATION.

MEDITATION is more about "connecting with, and/or tuning into" that which is total universal and all-encompassing--the ground of all being. What one calls this concept is, in my opinion, not all that important, as long as one feels good about it. If you are comfortable with the word, 'God', use it.

I don't mind using it as long as I am not expected to think of GOD as a "being", a "Him", a "person" or a "Heavenly Father" up there. One of my fellow posters, in brainMeta, says he prefers "Nature". Okay by me. What matters to me is this: As long as the "name" helps us to be socially useful, moral, ethical, just and loving human beings who want to leave our earthly home a better place than it was when we found it.

I am a theological pragmatist. I am one who accepts what is practical and is in keeping with the Golden Rule. As a philosophical and theological pragmatist, I tend to agree with what Dr. Carl Jung said about personality types. I had the privilege of doing a formal study of Jung for one year and I took the Myers Briggs personality test. My results sure seem to fit with the kind of personality I feel that I am.

By the way, Jung was the son of a Swiss-Protestant minister. Early on, they were at odds over matters of belief. But, later in life there was a happy reconciliation and meeting of the minds, [More on this art too, later]

Anon, you conclude with: "... Cultures used to think that the world was flat you know - because they believed their eyes. Although, I do not want to follow any religion."
Presuming that you are, what helps you to be a moral, ethical, loving and just human being, and one interested in being part of this forum?
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/06/08 09:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
Aren't humans the only creatures who laugh?
Not really.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/07/08 12:54 AM

Animal behaviour can often surprise us, but we have to be careful how we interpret it.

Those rats certainly seem to be displaying pleasure, or perhaps it is that sort of hysterical response some people also have to tickling. This is not the same as self generated laughter, when laughter is spontaneous, and not necessarily initiated by something/one else.

I 'd love to think animals can laugh. There is a marvellous moment in one of David Attenbourgh's documentaries on elephants, when one of the huge adult elephants realises there is something suss about the camera (it's hidden in a pile of plastic elephant poo). She plays around for a while----and after thinking a bit she stamps on it and throws it away with what almost seems to be a cheeky grin. It's quite deliberate and very funny. This doco also has the roaming elephants discovering the bones of one of their companions. They stop for a long time, handle the bones with their trunks and sway backwards and forwards. It is tempting to believe they recognise her, and mourn her, but that may be a step too far.

By the way, if you have had a cat live with you (you never own them) you will know that some of them hate being laughed at. The one we have at the moment will stalk off and sit on the other side of the room, with his back to us when we do. So of course we laugh even more!


Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/07/08 01:27 AM

IMO, Dogs are very dogmatic! Cats, IMO, are more dogmatic, categorically speaking! The Kings love both religions. smile
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/07/08 08:11 AM

The thoughts, humor is private property of humans doesn't look so well, if we define the humor as a manifestation of less ore more conscious happiness from foreign bad luck or lack of fitness. Such definition of humor covers surprisingly many examples of so called humor.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/07/08 04:29 PM

When I ran for public office I was tempted to put a sign on my lawn: BEWARE THE DOGMA!

Our good neighbour has two beautiful dogs. We had two very wise cats...They learned to live, at peace with the dog...mas. Both were near 20 when they passed on, peacefully, and at home.

BTW, an animal expert, and friend, told us: "When your cats start to sleep all the time, or appear to be in pain, give them liquefied adult sleeping medicine. No need for the dreaded trip to the vet." It worked.

Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/12/08 07:53 PM

A MEDITATION on the NOW
========================
As I have already told readers of this forum: Years ago I stopped praying in the traditional way. I do not say this to tell you what to do. If you are comfortable with how you "pray" and you get good results, keep on doing it the way which works for you. Right now I am simply telling you what works for me and helps me to be present in the NOW.
========================
I begin by taking the time to become aware of my breathing pattern. Then, breathing in, to the count of four, and out, to the count of four, I use the following colour symbols--real and/or imagined:

RED--the symbol of physical energy and power--the soma, or body, factor.
YELLOW--the symbol of knowledge, wisdom, truth--the psyche, or mind, factor.
BLUE--the symbol of faith, hope and love--the pneuma, or spirit, factor.

Just beneath the skin of the earth is the bright red magma, without which there would be no life on earth, no energy and power.

In the sky, there is the golden yellow sun, again essential to life on earth.

When the sky is cloudless it appears to us as blue.
===================================================
RED, stands for the physical energy and power of GOD
YELLOW, stands for the knowledge and wisdom of GOD
AND BLUE, stands for the all-pervasive Love of GOD.

THEN I BECOME AWARE of my heart and lungs, working together, producing the rich, red blood cells which nourish, energize and heal the body.

Red stands for all that is physical.
Yellow stands for all that is mental.
Blue stands for all that is spiritual.
===========
I ask myself: WHO AM I, AND WHAT AM I DOING HERE AND NOW?
A meditation on being present, in the NOW.

=====================================
[Now using the plural form]
For the next few minutes, we take the opportunity to relax...physically (somatically), mentally (psychologically) and spiritually ( pneumatologically). NOW, we breathe deeply...and ask: Who are we ...and...What are we doing NOW?

In the NOW, we connect with, and are in tune with, the Oneness of all things, GOD. In Aramaic--the language which Jesus spoke--the word, 'slaha'--which we translate as, prayer--actually means "to connect with, or to be in tune with". This means that we do not need to ask for anything.

Because we live and move within GOD--all goodness, all order and all design--everything we need already is, NOW. We do not need to beg a reluctant god. All we need do is give thanks and accept what we need.

WE ARE NOT JUST OUR BODIES
==========================
We acknowledge that, for now, we have physical bodies--the Greek for which is 'soma'. From it we get our word 'somatic'. When a doctor checks our blood pressure, our temperature and other vital signs, and ask us, "How do you feel?", we acknowledge that they are looking for somatic symptoms and the somatic diseases, or conditions, which may be causing them.

We acknowledge that, much like the hardware of computers, we have bodies--amazing instruments--for our use at this time. The same is true for our minds, or psyches--very amazing instruments. But we must not allow them to use us.

WE ARE NOT JUST OUR MINDS
=============================
We acknowledge that, for now, we have minds, or psyches. But we are more than this.

Many wise teachers tell us that understanding the complexities of the human mind may make us good psychologists, but it will not take us beyond the mind. Neither will the study of madness be enough to cure the sick mind and create sanity. Unless we are aware of what is happening, our bodies and our minds, on their own, simply create the ego--the false sense of self, the root cause of all psychosomatic (a word created in the 1930's) pain and misery.

Let us be well aware that the ego loves to play the role of being a dependent, dysfunctional whining, problem-plagued child. Unconsciously, it wants us to be vulnerable beings, victims under the tyranny of space and time.

As a result--and here is the time factor again--our egos are constantly battered by negative emotions which are usually focused around our tearful regrets regarding the recent and distant past, and the fearful anxiety regarding the unknown future. This combination makes for a panic-filled now.


If we allow ourselves to be attached to the mind (psyche)--a storehouse of mostly-unconscious memories, many of them awful--we begin to anticipate and imagine that the future could be equally awful, or even more so. Thus we develop an endless preoccupation with the awful past and the fearful future. In short, we allow ourselves to be trapped in the delusion of time.

What we need to know, and we want to know, NOW, is this: We have the power to take loving action in the NOW and the Present.

THE REALLY GOOD NEWS IS THIS: WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS (PNEUMAS)
===============================================================
Therefore, NOW, we make a deliberate shift in consciousness; we shift from mind to being, from time to PRESENCE. the psyche--which we can compare to the software of a computer--like the soma, is not the true or real us. The truth is, we are pneuma beings, or spiritual beings. In the NOW, we are having a somatic and psychic--a body/mind--experience.

MORE GOOD NEWS
==============
No wonder Paul called Love, "The greatest of these..."; No wonder, John said GOD IS LOVE. And, no wonder Love, in its agape, or spiritual, form is at the core of the Golden Rule, which is found at the heart of all the great religions.
============================
PUT IN THE FORM OF A POEM
=========================
We are one with mother earth;
With the land the skies and seas;
One with the source of human birth,
We're one...with GØD.
We are one with father sky;
With the sun, moon, planets, stars;
One with the galaxies on high,
We're one...in GØD.
With the Golden Rule in mind;
We work for justice and for peace;
And with all of human kind,
We work as one in GØD.
We feel at one with Christians, Jews;
Who want to build a better world.
With Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus,
We live and move in GØD
=======================
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/18/08 09:26 PM

WHAT KIND OF WORLD ARE WE CREATING?
===================================
Since the late 1990's I have had the privilege of keeping in touch with Dr. Shawn Mikulah, now a research neuro scientist in California. I met him, via the Net, when he was a student at Johns Hopkins University. Agree, or disagree, with what he says below, his ideas challenge us to think. Here is your opportunity to meet him:
http://brainmeta.com/index.php?p=mikula

Now, here are a few of his ideas:

Quote:
BrainMeta was established for the purpose of accelerating the development of neuroscience through web-based initiatives, which include the development, implementation and support of a wide range of neuroinformatics tools, services, and databases.
He goes on to say that, "The world is our creation, it is a thing created by mind, it is a mental construct. This is what BrainMeta seeks to communicate to others, so that they may open their eyes to this fact, so that they may go on to create something more than what is, and to instill the world with new and greater meaning.

Too many today do not appreciate the essentially 'constructive nature' of reality. It is all a mental construct. We are deceived by the fact that we are humans with human consciousness.... we rarely venture outside the realms of our human consciousness, and thus we see the world with human eyes. Naturally, the vast majority of people are blind to this because humans are predisposed and 'programmed' to construct the world in human terms.

Do you know who or what you are? Think about it. There are many illusions in life. The arguably tragic thing is that so many people of the past have lived their entire lives in illusion. They believed in their mental constructs, and took them to be the truth of things.

They were confined within their human consciousness, and never looked beyond. They never saw the true potential of consciousness, nor realized the constructive nature of reality. They never realized that their 'truths' were simply mental constructs, including their own sense of self-identity.

If anything, BrainMeta seeks to awaken people to the fact that the full potential of consciousness has not yet been realized, and that in order to begin realizing it, we must potentiate our consciousness, and ultimately, transcend our human consciousness. This may be brought about in many different ways, and while spiritual insight is important for awakening one to the latent potential of consciousness, the most important way for fully realizing this potential will be through the use of science as a tool, or more specifically, through the adequate understanding of brain mechanisms and the manipulation and enhancement of the human brain and its functioning, in order to make it more than human.

It is inevitable that in the near future, neuroscience will unleash a veritable revolution in consciousness and its study, that will result in a paradigm shift orders of magnitude larger than any in science preceding it.

BrainMeta seeks to help fulfill the potential that neuroscience offers us all, in part by providing information over the upcoming revolution in consciousness that will come from neuroscience, and additionally, by providing tools, information, and opportunities for facilitating and accelerating the further development of neuroscience.

Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/18/08 10:33 PM

Quote:
Agree, or disagree, with what he says below,


Or do or say something other?
What exactly comes of comparing idea of agreement or disagreement?

Quote:
his ideas challenge us to think. Here is your opportunity to meet him:

In my own communications with Shawn, I have come to understand that his statement is based on Eastern philosophy and his own exploration into spirituality and the Science of Yoga.
His ideas initiate conversation where people want to challenge and compare their own ideas.
Thinking does not necessarily lead to experience and more than often people think about having an experience and even speak of their thoughts in which they have no experience...
One does not necessarily get to truly know someone by reading some statement a person made a few years ago.
Without spending some quality time with someone, one on one it is often difficult for some to truly understand where someone is coming from.
IF we are engaging intuition here about knowing someone and their beliefs then I would like to know if others believe we can make a valid value judgment of someone and their beliefs thru a summarization of internet communication, and what value we gain by making judgments based on whether we agree with someone or not other than to place ourselves on some personal scale of comparison.

Where do you really want to go with this Rev.?

Are we validating or poo pooing the Science of Yoga, and then determining if neuroscience can replicate the natural process of intellectual choice and spiritual evolution, or just making chit chat to create a segue for you to speak again about what you believe?


Please try not to take offense with my blunt response, I realize you have a tendency to judge me by the inability to understand where I am coming from, which is why I think some clarity should be gained from making judgments regarding internet conversations and personal points of view.
True objectivity comes from loosening the restraints on personal agendas and beliefs. wink
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/19/08 01:51 AM

Quote:
"True objectivity comes from loosening the restraints on personal agendas and beliefs."


Help! Does anyone have any idea what the above means?
If I really knew what restraints TT plans to loosen and what his/her personal agendas and beliefs are, I might be able to comment. If anyone understands TT, would you please translate it for me? How many here acknowledge that TT is a genius?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/19/08 02:48 AM

Quote:
Help! Does anyone have any idea what the above means?
If I really knew what restraints TT plans to loosen and what his/her personal agendas and beliefs are, I might be able to comment. If anyone understands TT, would you please translate it for me? How many here acknowledge that TT is a genius?


This should be interesting....A little off topic but if you want to focus on me, I'll be your huckleberry. cool
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/19/08 08:00 PM

Posters: IMO, ones religion includes anything which give meaning and purpose to ones life. Some religions are good; some are not so good, and some even sick--like those which advocate violence to those who refuse to bow and scrape.

Then there are those who find life is without meaning. It seems to me that they have a religion that is not so good. For example, like nihilistic existentialism. Sad.

BTW, is a huckleberry similar to a black berry?

IMO, Huck Finn was no outcast. When he refused to surrender a runaway slave to the slave-hunters, this, to me, made him a hero.

BTW 2, I am not into judging the motives of others. I leave it to them to reveal their motives when they feel free and comfortable, to do so. No one, except me, can really judge my motives--even when they know me, close up. There is always room for flexibility. However, how we act does count for a lot. But I do not speak or act to win the approval of everyone.

Dialogue is about the communication of ideas and to learn something new--my chief interest here.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/19/08 09:14 PM


Quote:

Posters: IMO, ones religion includes anything which give meaning and purpose to ones life.

Comprehension is imperative to learning something new.
Generally speaking if ones glass is full there is nothing that can fit in it less one empties it first. Religion has a way of sealing the glass when one closes their mind to others and their dialogue in favor of one track thinking or the isolation of what one gives meaning from what others give meaning to.

Making comparisons in the guise of innocent dialogue often reveals itself thru the repetitive insertions of relating the personal to opinion and the interpretation of amicable disagreement.

Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/19/08 09:43 PM

So? I have no idea what the point, above, is. Does anyone? If you do, HELP!!!!
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/20/08 01:08 PM

Maybe TT is suggesting that always arguing from anecdotes of one's own experience can be limiting, and if religion is involved then perhaps this is even more true. But then, maybe he is meaning nothing of the kind and it's just me who suggests it.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/20/08 04:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
Maybe TT is suggesting that always arguing ...
Ellis, As you are aware, I prefer the sharing of ideas and concepts in the dialogue format, not as a debate. Or perhaps you think that dialogue, argument and debate are all one and the same. Do you?

Quote:
...anecdotes of one's own experience can be limiting...
In what way?

BTW, maybe you prefer to have a friendly debate. I am quite willing to listen to your arguments regarding theology, religion, philosophy and the like. Unless you would like me to, I promise not to call you insulting names. smile
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/20/08 09:07 PM

I believe that all three are part of sharing ideas and concepts. Dialogue alone does not ensure exploration of new and interesting points of view, especially if examples used are primarily those from one's own experience.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/20/08 09:27 PM

Incorporating all three ensures the ability to release control and manipulation, only if one decides to leave their ego someplace other than in the conversation.
Otherwise conversation returns to an all about me, look what I have done, this is what I do, check out me and my thing, I have found this works for me so what do you think about that type of conversation.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/21/08 06:18 AM

Anyone, go ahead. Tell me all about you and what, in the philosophies, the arts and sciences, turns you on. What are your questions, your hopes, and dreams. How interested are you in becoming a highly evolved and fully conscious spiritual being? Without resistance or emotional negativity, all my senses are, to the best of my ability, open and alert to read what you have to say.

I may ask questions, or even disagree with you, but I promise to do so agreeably--and without be judgmental. If I ever offend, please tell me and I will gladly apologize. Especially so, if I bore you.

If what anyone writes educates, enlightens, challenges, enriches, helps, amuses, interests and helps me be present in the Now, wonderful!

If anyone offends me, without attachment to my own views, or to my egoic mind, and opinions, I consciously choose to have the Presence of Spirit, the insight and wisdom to "turn the other cheek"--i.e, yield, surrender, without resignation, to the flow of life in the Now. Eckart Tolle writes about the need to understand this in his wonderful book, The Power of NOW--a Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment.

If anyone bores, or tries to use and manipulate me--without resentment or resistance (I hope)--I will remove myself, walk away, move on and take a rest, which I soon will ZZZZZzzzzz..... smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/21/08 07:50 AM

In the Upanishads there is a story of a boy who asks his father how he may become enlightened. The Father says to him,"Read scripture (words of the enlightened), surround yourself with enlightened company (Those that have dedicated themselves to a life of expansion and spiritual growth) and study the Self/Spirit (Isvara Pranidhana) in the meditation on the voice of God (the Aum or the universal principal of creation, the absolute). The very thing Jesus did every time he withdrew into isolated prayer as was mentioned in the Bible.

One does not get enlightened by reading a book or stating affirmations to be enlightened. There is no feedback when one immerses themselves in self speculation regarding ideals of enlightenment that are based on projections of the ego. Good intentions are not always inspired by wisdom or enlightenment if you are in a state of consciousness that is seeking to know enlightenment but also filled with a myriad of beliefs about enlightenment and the world that is the projection of ego.

Just as the Bible has been influence to billions of people but has not given anyone experience of Selflessness, scripture can only point the way if one can decipher the meanings and truths that are not part of the domain of the ego.
Quote:
If anyone offends me, without attachment to my own views, or to my egoic mind, and opinions, I consciously choose to have the Presence of Spirit, the insight and wisdom to "turn the other cheek"--i.e, yield, surrender, without resignation, to the flow of life in the Now.
This will be an interesting experiment to see if one can change just by saying they will do something different than they are used to. To command wisdom to be a part of their experience and demeanor and to cast habit off just by saying it all will happen by making a conscious choice to make it so.

It takes something greater than habit or good intentions in the experience of ones self to erase the stresses of habit.
In my own experience of evolution I have been tempted time and time again and had to make a choice to surrender my stress and judgment to the greater experience of myself. Without it there is nothing to shift the awareness to other than a fabricated ideal. Juggling ideals and the opposite to ideals generally ages most people and leads them to build castles of definitions which shape the personality into ego. It is this ego that relegates the soul to be in the world and of the world, rather than in the world but not of it, where spirit or consciousness is the essence of ones Self/self. Where the face of God is the immortal spirit rather than the image the ego identifies with in the mirror on the wall with all of its degrees, personal achievements, beliefs and labels.

In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali there is a saying. It is impossible to surrender to the supreme being without first having an experience of the supreme being because ideas fabricated from the imaginings of the ego are inconsistent and illusive.

In order to realize the power of now one must have an experience of the now, the infinite potential or the absolute. When one meditates on that it grows into the awareness of all experiences. With the assistance or reflection of similar or like minded individuals one can bounce their experiences off of one another to refine and isolate the now from illusions and projections of the ego.

For me personally, this did not come overnight or even after reading a dozen books on enlightenment, I immersed myself in the reflection of those who had themselves dedicated their lives to the now above and beyond everything else.

It is said, "No one can solve a problem from the level in which it is created." All earthly problems are a result of the separation of man from his own spirit as he has isolated himself in his Egoic kingdom of personality and opinion, or as Jesus called it Hell.
In order to heal the world one has to "heal" themselves or "enter the kingdom of heaven" as it was also said.

This is the Science of Yoga or the "Power of Now", or another way it was put, "Surrendering to the Christ"
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/21/08 05:20 PM

READERS, GET INVOLVED
With over 1000 clicks--and in just a few days--on this topic surely there are others--besides the less than a handful who post here--who are willing to say: This is what I choose to believe (I presume it means to be + live).... Or not to believe. And here is how I choose to act.

Aye, there's the challenge: the putting into practice, on a daily basis, what we say we believe. Read the letter of James--the brother of Jesus. Its central theme is: "Faith without works is dead." It calls on us to have a rational faith which inspires us to do socially useful works. Faith and work must act as a team.

Of course to act in good faith is to act lovingly. IMO, "Love", which I like to capitalize, is more useful as a verb than as a noun. Agape, the Greek word, means to choose, to will and act in the now on the basis of finding the good in all circumstances and in all people. Not easy to do. But, in GOD, there are many people out there who are willing to be of loving help to those who need it.

ABOUT Eckhart Tolle's concept of GOD
============================
In his book already mentioned, Tolle--who, BTW, is not affiliated with any one religion--points out that he never talks about "finding God". When people ask him about how "to find God" he usually responds, I presume with a smile on his face: "...how can you find that which was never lost....? (P.224) He adds,"God is being itself, not a being."

I find myself in absolute agreement with ET when he writes about his idea of "God", especially when the word is used as a proper noun. The noun "God" is filled with so much baggage and so many misperceptions. It has been constantly misused over the centuries to this present day.

He writes, "There can be no subject-object relationship here, no duality, no you and God."

I can't remember the last time I thought of people as being here, separate and apart, and God as a being up there--and looking like the Sistine-Chapel version of God as painted by Michael Angelo. For decades I have thought of people as being as much a part of GOD as we are of the cosmos. While I have every respect for all forms of theism, including agnosticism and atheism, I prefer to speak of GOD--Goodness, Order and Design--as an acronym, rather than as a noun.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/21/08 05:53 PM

Quote:
For decades I have thought of people as being as much a part of GOD as we are of the cosmos.
Then obviously there is no expectation or presumptions on the readers when you say
Quote:
READERS, GET INVOLVED
With over 1000 clicks--and in just a few days--on this topic surely there are others--besides the less than a handful who post here--who are willing to say: This I choose to believe (I presume it means to be + live), or not to believe.

Obviously there are those who are less than energetic about making their statements for the benefit of someone who has no need to be convinced that God exists. Making statements or expressing ones beliefs doesn't reinforce them unless they aren't convinced themselves, in which case why make a statement in the face of someone who is so adamant toward their own beliefs?

Perhaps you could make a statement as to why one should be involved in this conversation?

Obviously you like to talk about yourself, but perhaps others aren't as comfortable talking about themselves or feeling like they have to prove something, or agree or disagree.

By the way this is just a social invitation to a discussion, not a picture meant to be solidified into any particular meaning unless you should feel it necessary to do so.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/22/08 05:19 PM

C'mon Rev.
Don't you want to share with the posters why you think they should post in response to your topics? You have urged the lurkers to come forward and respond to the topics you have started, but why?
Share with them why you come here and post time and time again expressing your beliefs and your associations with people and subject of notoriety. I'm sure that there is no lack for words in your experience, and it follows the energetics of your urging them to participate and fits within the topic of beliefs and philosophy.

We all know you like to dialogue and in the past you have been pretty narrow about how that dialogue works but now you are attempting to be open enough not to turn away what you might construe as an argument or debate in favor of including all ideals and expressions in the definition and dialogue and to include free expression as part of ones beliefs and philosophy, and even the possibility of ones religion.
Don't fade out now. Instead of backing up accounts of the past with links and books share why you believe others should be here expressing their beliefs, what you think they have to gain.
Don't you want to tell them why?

Quote:

Dialogue is about the communication of ideas and to learn something new--my chief interest here.


I pulled this quote from a previous post but I'm hoping to find out if it is strictly to fulfill your interest in getting others to express, or if you believe others have or should have the same interest. Is it part of your philosophy and religion, or are you still refining your philosophy and religion by listening to others.

I have experienced in my own observations how you change with currents of expression to include words you think have more meaning such as changing the word God to G'd or GØD. How you said you followed the expressions of Whitehead and now Tolle and many others, leaving a myriad of references to your beliefs and incorporating anything that feels good to you.

Are you still hungry for knowledge to add to your beliefs? Are you asking the many for more input to satiate your appetite for knowledge? Is the accumulation of knowledge in your experience the food of the Gods or GØD? You have urged others to join you in discussion so many times in the past. What is the hunger you have with dialogue?

I'm seriously interested.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/22/08 10:14 PM

TT, your being willing to communicate with all posters has real value, thanks! The podium is yours!
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/22/08 11:08 PM

Quote:
TT, your being willing to communicate with all posters has real value, thanks! The podium is yours!

It's you I want to communicate with. I want to hear from you rather than the bibliography of Rev. King. Especially in reference to the questions I asked.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/23/08 09:14 PM

ABOUT MY HUNGER AND THIRST FOR KNOWLEDGE
Thanks to a URL posted by a fellow poster in BrainMeta, I just watched a 39-minute video Here it it:
http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/mkaku.htm
Fascinating. It is an interview with Dr. Michiko Kaku, born in Los Angeles, who is a well known and respected Harvard physicist.

His views are a pretty good reflection of generally accepted theories amongst modern physicists. To me, what he says sound so theological and it inspired me to think about:

YHWY, GOD--beyond the atomic theory of things
===================================================
After listening to this interview I now know why Orthodox Jews think of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, as being too sacred to vocalize and is beyond mere physicalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
http://www.eliyah.com/tetragrm.html
As I have said before, When Orthordox Jews write the proper name for 'God' in English, they do not use and ordinary noun, God; they use 'G-d'. The concept is too large to be confined to a single proper noun.
http://www.tetragrammaton.org/

THE STRING THEORY AND GOD
Dr. Kaku is one of the originators of the string theory of which I was made aware, in 2002, when I read the book, Universe on a T-Shirt--the quest for the theory of everything (2002), by Dan Dalk. It was this theory, with so much in common with quantum physics, that inspired me to start using the acronym, GOD.

Or--as in my signature--instead of using 'O', I also like to use the null sign--'0' with a / through it--symbolizing micro and macro universes.
=======================================================
I also like using the following formula: E=MC2+F(aith) +H(ope)xL(ove)--a formula which enables us to think of human beings as co-creators, partners of the on-going process of creation, which A.N. Whitehead--scientist, process philosopher and theologian--wrote about in the 1930's and 40's.
--------------------
GØD--the symbol I use to refer to the entire physical COSMOS and beyond. GØD encompasses and interpenetrates all "things"--physical, mental and spiritual. This is panentheism--not just pantheism.Thanks to Whitehead! RevLGKing. http://www.flfcanada.com http://www.unitheist.org/
==================================================
Without having any kind of doctrinaire attitude, at this point, the above ideas form the basis of what I think of as my personal faith and religion.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/23/08 11:22 PM

So you are basing you faith on your resonance with other people and their theories, and you hunger for knowledge that will support the theory and faith.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/24/08 02:54 AM

TT,
I "hunger for knowledge that will support the theory and faith" and I enjoy the "resonance with other people and their theories" that comes with sharing 'faith-based' discussions, debates, etc.

Is that okay, or just stroking the ego?

~K
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/24/08 07:51 AM



The following is a translation and commentary of an excerpt from the "Yoga Sutras of Patanjali" [Pada 1 Sutra 7]
written some 5000 years ago


Upward thoughts result from clear perception,
logical deduction and direct cognition.


Clear perception includes direct and immediate experience. It implies that the windows of the senses have been cleansed, that previous experience and belief are not coloring the reality seen as it is Now. The typical experience of the Waking State is that the past is never quiescent -- every experience is shaped and colored by memories of previous experiences. These operate on such a subtle level inside that it is rare to be aware of their existence. Yet, if for even the briefest of moments, we can slip beyond the limitations of our past and see life as it is truly is right Now, we find that every moment is filled with glory, wonder, love, life and joy.
Clear perception and valid inference or logical deduction are impossible in the absence of the third characteristic of correct understanding: direct cognition. Direct cognition means those thoughts that rise without distortion from the Source of Thought. The Source of Thought is the unlimited reservoir of creativity, intelligence and bliss that lies within each of us. In the Waking State, this reservoir is far beyond normal experience, for only the most surface or manifest level of thought is perceived. So thoughts are appreciated only when they have moved through the nervous system and reached the conscious thinking level, the 10% thinking level, the surface of the mind.
Most thoughts making their way to the surface of the mind have been distorted by stress. They are no longer particularly filled with clarity, intelligence, happiness, love or energy. Previous life experiences and the beliefs based on those experiences twist and maim the original intention and purity of the thoughts arising from their Source in Universal Intelligence. The actions resulting from these diminished thoughts are necessarily flawed, mutually contradictory and weak; they inevitably lead to lack of progress and ever-increasing difficulty in life.
But those fortunate thoughts that arise purely and without distortion from the Source remain surcharged with energy, intelligence and bliss; they, being unflawed, never contradict each other (or the Universe) and therefore result in greater harmony, happiness and success in every area of life.
Direct cognition thus also includes those thoughts that have been expressed by the enlightened, for one quality of enlightenment is the ability to think and therefore speak without distortion from the Source. Every valid scriptural statement falls under this category. Of course, the trouble in recognizing which of the world's scriptures are direct expressions undistorted from the Source is that it takes a mind that is incapable of being distorted to verify the reality of the written words. Thus following any book blindly in the hopes of improving life is about as intelligent as trying to learn to fly by reading a novel about airplanes. But for those whose mental instruments do in fact translate thought without distortion from the Source, reading or hearing the expressions of other such minds is a constant thrill of delight. It is never a matter of competition. A truly enlightened follower of any faith will see only the Beauty in all other religions.

Compare this with Christ telling his disciples not to worry about what to say when they spoke his Teaching, for the Holy Spirit would give them all the words they needed: "Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." -- MATTHEW 10:19&20. Cf. MARK 13:11; LUKE 12:11&12, 21:15; EXODUS 4:10-12; ISAIAH 50:4; JEREMIAH 1:9.

In the sutra above what is being elaborated upon is the fact that faith when fueled by anything other than direct cognition is subject to egoic influence. In the waking state of consciousness which is of the three most recognized states of consciousness, the other two being sleeping and dreaming, recognition or understanding based on past influences has a tendency to be subject to personality. What drives our senses is most often judgment based on feelings and emotions. If one person has a particular set of beliefs and their faith is wrapped around the belief of personality it will divide information to separate that which is not appealing from what is appealing. Discernment may not be clear because of emotional investments in how things make us feel.
Intuitive processes are colored by likes and dislikes, or the attachment to emotional response and the projection of possible futures and outcomes of choice. Such is the state of religion today. Faith based on religious beliefs is supported by like minded beliefs and conversations that do not threaten the attachment to personal ideals and boundaries.

During the crusades the church dictated how spirituality should be understood, faith was given to the head of the church as the clear authority who was supposed to be in direct contact with God and God's plan. By following this authority and the faith in the power of the officials, man was easily manipulated into spiritual genocide or the cleansing of impure religious beliefs through a process of eliminating the people who lived with any opposing thought.
For the majority who reveled in their power of control over beliefs and faith, there was great enjoyment in the resonance of commonality and the elimination of all opposing beliefs.
Of course the common people only lived with theory because they were told by church officials that common folk didn't posses the ability to communicate directly with God or to have a direct experience of God. For those that believed a direct experience of God was not possible, theory was their vehicle carried them on their way to the authority in surrender and worship.

Throughout the past several hundred years the church has had to morph with the evolution of technology and science, and the intellectual understanding of human awareness that has made it less simple to hypnotize the intellect with stories of theory, no matter how good it sounds. Today industry bases its ability to sell and control consumption by their use of the media to influence man with relative truths and theory based on the most current scientific data. For the most part we are taught to believe in the authority of Government representation, Church, and the sciences of education because of their predetermined reputation. Very few actually get a chance to develop a sense of conscious awareness and intuitive reflex because it is not taught to us but discouraged, by predetermined social values, rules and scientific influences that tell us what we cannot see and touch is not real.

So Faith is not enough for we can have faith in anything, and faith without direct experience or the enlivenment of clear and direct cognition or intuition is at best a guessing game of how does this feel to me? What most of us already know is that feelings and beliefs are constantly changing, and if Faith is supported by these changing feelings and beliefs what is it that we really know about what it is we have faith in?

If you are lucky to get into a debate and come away with your beliefs intact then you have either come up with a decent argument to protect your personal interests or the opposing argument was not strong enough that day to change your feelings or your opinion.
But lets look at the most recent history of say the Rev. Lindsay who I made mention of having started with the word God who then changed that word to G'd because he agreed with the Jewish version of spelling God and then to GØD as an acronym for a personal revelation which was a representation of changed or refined thinking again.

If our faith is personal and not universal we have our own acronyms which have meaning to us but not necessarily to anyone else. It then becomes an issue of dealing out our beliefs to others to see if they produce the desired result of commonality so that we can enjoy a spirit of relative communion with belief and enjoy the resonance of like mindedness. As long as our group of commonality stays together grows and expands we feel great about our beliefs and our faith in our beliefs.

Without the direct cognition of the supreme being, there is only relative association to personal attachment. If the supreme being exists in all beliefs and all personal agendas the ego then has no protection from the opposing thoughts and conflict that comes from personal beliefs that are different. Ones faith becomes subject to personal opinion and can easily be attacked by someone who has just as strong a faith in their ideas that are completely different.

A conversation such as this one on a Topic of Faith, Religion and philosophy becomes a discussion based on theories and which ever theory burns the brightest is the one that attracts the most moths in a world filled with darkness.

In the link Lindsay posted for the interview with Dr. Kaku there is a reference in the interview of Dr. Kaku to extremists or to the Terrorists of the Muslim Faith as wanting to be a type minus 1 society. Based on the idea that we are still approaching a type 1 society and that the Christian and Jewish Faiths have come to a medium of faith integration he suggests that the Muslims have so far removed themselves in their faith that they would rather propel society back into a segregated society. He doesn't mention why but it's basically because the radical seed that is being sewn is the mistrust of the massive widespread authority that is given to ideas spread about by the media machine.
Anything can be sold.
It wasn't that long ago that the authority told us that the world was flat.
The policies of divided politics work to distract humanity while the promise of relief is sold via the media to the public pointing in any direction which satisfies the senses taste for immediate satisfaction or instant gratification.
In politics faith is in the system which is going to serve ones self interests the best.
With philosophy and religion that is not based on direct cognition whichever theory that suits ones best interests is going to be the one that sells easily and soothes the needs of personal realities.

So Knowledge then is going to be relative. How does one empathize with knowledge that is based on direct cognition such as scripture if your faith is not connected to direct experience and cognition, but relative ideals contrived of theories regarding scripture that are filtered through a closet full of intellectual programs and emotional attachments, which have you changing your mind, your acronyms and your faith like you change your clothes or the oil in your car?
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/24/08 08:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Thus following any book blindly in the hopes of improving life is about as intelligent as trying to learn to fly by reading a novel about airplanes. But for those whose mental instruments do in fact translate thought without distortion from the Source, reading or hearing the expressions of other such minds is a constant thrill of delight. It is never a matter of competition. A truly enlightened follower of any faith will see only the Beauty in all other religions.
I haven't yet read past this part [sorry], but I couldn't resist:

"A truly enlightened follower of any faith will see only the Beauty in all other religions."

Gosh, what a wonderful sentiment. This should be in all the "bibles" of the world.

It reminds me of what I just posted, concurrently with your post above, at "Unified Field Theory. Maybe?":
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthr...=2735#Post27572
"I find it helpful to accept (conditionally) the validity of all theories (and new hypotheses), and then see how they can be interpreted in terms of my own "perspective" or GUT (Grand Unified Theory)."

Although I didn't say so, it is the most beautifully rewarding experience to feel as if I'm at least close to correctly interpreting something (in terms of a 'unified' perspective). Hopefully that was somewhat indicated be the succeeding statement:

"I think it's great that the Zeitgeist is changing so that, without mathematical proof, we can now see beyond the illusory separate nature of reality, and see intuitively into the unified nature of reality."
===

So TT, if I can interject....
Can we define "Beauty" as a reflection of Truth, or a refraction of Truth, ...or in some way related to Truth?

Thanks,
~ wink

...now I'll go finish reading ...[sorry].
smile
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/24/08 09:43 AM

...finished....

I think I agree with all you've said; but you apply this to "the acronym," and isn't the acronym just more of an evolution in one's capability to express something (more fully?), rather than an evolution or morphing of the fundamental philosophy behind the expression?

But I have a question about "evolution" of our 'God sense' that you speak to.

People born and raised in a particular faith have no basis for comparison.... Umm. Let me start over.

Doesn't there need to be some evolution of faith; from our childlike, 'magical' understanding, thru some crisis or challenge by other perspectives, and finally into a more capable, cohesive, integrated, inclusive and reality-based faith?

...like being re-born, or at least re-affirmed, perhaps....

Thanks,
~ smile
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/24/08 12:36 PM

MYSTICISM
=========
World Book Dictionary defines 'mysticism' as: the doctrine that truth or God may be known through spiritual insight, independent of the mind ...

But keep in mind, it also gives this meaning, "...vague or fuzzy thinking; dreamy speculation". "obscure thought, vague speculation".

What is yours?

To give formulation to my own experience I like using the following formula: E=MC2+I(magination)+F(aith)+H(ope)xL(ove)

Is this a the formula for the GUT--grand universal theory? Or the unified field theory? Just wondering.

Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/24/08 05:51 PM


Quote:
Sawmik:
So TT, if I can interject....
Can we define "Beauty" as a reflection of Truth, or a refraction of Truth, ...or in some way related to Truth?

Once again Beauty is going to be in the eye of the beholder and depending on the levels of stress or internal programs what one defines as stressful or even beautiful is going to be subjective.
In the previous Sutra Patanjali describes 5 kinds of action or movements:
1) Upward thoughts
2) Downward thoughts
3) Dreaming
4) Sleep
5) Memory

"Upward thoughts," also mean "great, filling, fulfilling, true, satisfying, and nourishing beliefs, wishes, desires, perceptions and observations." Thus this kind of movement of consciousness leads directly to positivity, to health, to expansion of consciousness, to all that is great and worthwhile in the mind.
Patanjali uses the word to describe thoughts based on Truth. Tho all is connected in the Unity of God not all thoughts are based on One truth if consciousness is divided in the relative ideals and identities that are created within the ego.
"Downward thoughts," on the other hand, mean all that is destructive. Viparyaya (sanskrit from the original Sutra) can also be translated as "inverted, opposed, perverse, altered, changed for the worse, disfigured, calamitous, unfortunate, wrong and erroneous thinking." Thus downward thoughts lead to all that is damaging in life, to greater bondage, to increased ignorance and destruction.
These two kinds of movements together constitute the thoughts of the Waking State of Consciousness. Downward thoughts include all the self-destructive beliefs, habits and judgments that make life difficult, that lead to failure of all kinds -- mental, emotional and physical. Upward thoughts include those thoughts that lead to liberation. Any thought that is directed upward -- toward Truth, Beauty, Love, Light, God -- is under this category.
Of the nearly Infinite number of possible upward-rising thoughts, a small handful can be considered to be truly liberating from the confines of the Waking State ego. In our experience, there are approximately 108 of these Great Thoughts (Mahavakyas in Sanskrit) that lead directly to enlightenment.
"Dreams," vikalpa, the 3rd movement of consciousness include all illusions and fantasies. Dreams follow the echo of experience; they are void of Reality.

Experience in the Waking State overloads the nervous system and creates stresses in the body. With the rest of sleep, these stresses start to dissolve; their movement creates the illusion of reality in the mind. In other words, the source of most dreams is the reverberation of previous experience. Attempting to derive meaning from the symbols contained in dreams is therefore largely a waste of time. Much more can be accomplished in the Waking State, given the appropriate tools and guidance, than can be accomplished by analyzing dreams. They are like the shards of the broken pottery of Waking State experience: difficult to piece back together, hard to manipulate effectively, time-consuming and of questionable value in the end. Time is precious. Why analyze illusions when so much of Reality remains to be understood? Enlightenment comes more quickly by studying Reality than by studying fantasy. There is wonder enough in the waking world to keep anyone enthralled indefinitely. As fascinating and instructional as dreams can certainly be, Evolution comes most quickly by focusing on transformation of the Waking State.
None of this should be taken to mean that direct cognition cannot occur in the dream state. It can occur in any state. Lucid dreaming does not fall under this definition of dreaming. Truth and Beauty can be found anywhere at any time. But it is not from studying dreams that direct cognition most easily flows.
"Sleep," nidra, the 4th movement of consciousness: Sleep is the movement that adheres to the thought of nothing.

Patanjali reintroduces vitti, "movement," here to reinforce his explanation that sleep is not a state of mind completely without thought. The mind completely without thought, it must be reemphasized, experiences Transcendant or absolute Consciousness or cosmic consciousness or the reflection of the absolute The "True Nature of the Self," "True Condition of the Self," "True Character of the Self." When the stress of the day's activity becomes too great for the body to continue functioning effectively, when the fatigue toxins have accumulated too much for the body to deal with them efficiently, sleep comes to restore the balance. The EEG records that brain waves continue during sleep, they are registering a thought of non-existence or nothingness. A thought of nothing is not the experience of Nothing!
"Nothing," derived from the sanskrit abhava, literally means "not Being." Bhava is Being, a common and useful word for the "True Self" or condition of the "True Self". "Thought," pratyaya, also means "belief, faith, conviction, cause, idea." And "adheres to," alambana, also means "supporting" or "foundation." So sleep is the movement of consciousness of non-being that supports the beliefs and causes the ideas of the Waking State. This means that the thought of nothingness underlies all the movements of the mind. Being remains forever transcendental to the reality of the world; it remains forever beyond thought and experience. What then underlies and supports all the movements of consciousness? Not Being. Nothingness. This is a very abstract understanding of this sutra, and one that probably makes little sense to the Waking State, for one of the primary beliefs of the Waking State is that its thoughts and perceptions of the external world are undeniably real. Thus someone falls ill because of a wandering bacteria or virus; one ages; one suffers; one dies.
There is another way of experiencing Reality, one that begins with the premise that the underlying support of all thoughts and external perceptions is, in fact, nothing. If this concept can be understood, not intellectually, but as a direct and living experience, then the ability to redirect the world in any desired manner can be effortlessly accomplished. The transformation of consciousness that makes this a reality is the subject of the Yoga Sutras.

The fifth type of movement of consciousness, flawless memory, is the most important of the five. Flawed memory, the usual experience of the Waking State, falls under the category of downward thoughts. Nothing is remembered perfectly in the Waking State, for nothing is experienced perfectly, as it really is. Rather, the previous impressions of experience and belief color every experience, every thought, so nothing is or even can be seen exactly as it is. Cognition of the True Form of the Self is a function of flawless memory, and therefore so is seeing life exactly as it is.
Quote:
Sawmik:
I think I agree with all you've said; but you apply this to "the acronym," and isn't the acronym just more of an evolution in one's capability to express something (more fully?), rather than an evolution or morphing of the fundamental philosophy behind the expression?

But I have a question about "evolution" of our 'God sense' that you speak to.

People born and raised in a particular faith have no basis for comparison.... Umm. Let me start over.

Doesn't there need to be some evolution of faith; from our childlike, 'magical' understanding, thru some crisis or challenge by other perspectives, and finally into a more capable, cohesive, integrated, inclusive and reality-based faith?

...like being re-born, or at least re-affirmed, perhaps....

From what I took in the Yoga Sutras to point to interpretation of reality, any Acronym is going to be subject to the illusions that are created by the ego. Therefor God, G'd or GØD is what some might think of as evolutionary to ones spiritual development but if you are still not in direct contact with God any reference to what God is will still be from the imagination which is encapsulated with personal interpretation.

The stories or acronyms of the personal become alot like the story of the three blind men who are taken to different parts of the elephant to briefly touch "an appendage" and are then withdrawn to tell their story of their experience and then define God.
The one who touches the "leg" describes the elephant as an immovable tree, round, rough and solid. The one who is standing on a crate and touches the "ear" describes it like a living carpet. And then the one who touches the "trunk" which causes the elephant to react and flip the blind man over and on to the ground describes it as a wild and dangerous snake.

Now if you apply the unified field theory of combining thoughts what do you get by combining a tree, a carpet and a snake? Do you get elephant?

Within the meanings of the unified field theory that Einstein was searching for was commonality to all perceptions that don't necessarily require that all pieces combined make a whole, because Einstein intuitively sensed that it was impossible to exhaust the potential of the universe to create a total combination of pieces that would make the whole of God or Consciousness, or the underlying principle of the universe.
So in fact combining religions is not the way to clarity.
Religion is more like a branch of a tree. While the religious followers try and water the branch and gaze over with scrutiny to those on other branches even possibly with interest as long as they see the branches rather than the whole tree they will invariably fail to note the root of the tree from which all branches and the tree have grown.
Once one has fully mastered themselves and their connection to the universe they have taken their awareness from the ego's interpretations of the branch to the root.

Of all the worlds religions: Hinduism--the most ancient, The Hebrew religion, Buddhism, The Confucian teachings, The Taoist beliefs, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Jainism, Christianity, Islam,and Sikhism the most recent, all were derived from the experience of the root. The visionary who spoke to the people of their direct experience became the master amongst the waking state masses who's imagination was focused on what they could interpret from the visionary as he spoke of the root. From their interpretations grew religion, like a game of Chinese whispers or
blind men comparing their parts of the elephant creating democratic spiritualism, and we have a written history of how thoughts and dreams were applied in the crusades and the Spanish inquisition and even the Third Reich of Hitlers regime.

True vision, or to be born again is to be immersed in the Unity of God in all things, or said another way to have a direct "living link" to the root in conscious awareness. Only then can one be free of illusions and the discrepancies that cause illusion.
Only then does love become unconditional and will wisdom of omniscience fill the heart with compassion for humanity that is searching for Absolute truth within the relative ideals of egoic fantasy.
The wisdom of being a parent comes from recognizing the illusions of childhood and having a tolerance for the mistakes that children make from misinterpretations of the adult world. The wisdom of the enlightened is in recognizing the illusions ego creates while idealizing and defining spirituality and God.

Tho a wise parent can be tolerant and patient the child is not always as tolerant or patient and out of frustration will see the parent as trying to take from them what they have when they are guiding them to greater understanding. But without guidance the child will stumble into illusion after illusion until they have become open to receive truth. Without love of the parent children do not know love. If love of the parent is conditional children learn conditional love. If love of the parent is unconditional it is more likely that the child will learn unconditional love. Children are like sponges, their innocence allows them to absorb almost everything, it is the parents and the societal education system that shapes the sponge so that it absorbs what is categorically "socially acceptable."
Obviously with the conflicting beliefs of society and peer groups that are shaped by diverse individual thinking of families and their political and spiritual beliefs, children are pretty much living their lives in the environment of our schools in defense rather than innocence. Searching for packs that offer protection and support.

It does not require a calamitous event to draw the infinite into ones awareness but there are many stories of people who had reached a point in their life when nothing seemed worth hanging on to, and life seemed pointless. This is just the break spirit needed to slip past the ego to reveal itself. When the mind is no longer actively seeking to protect its beliefs and illusions a window is created where truth may reveal itself but this absolutely is not the rule. Epiphanies are not the standard for awakenings or for evolution of consciousness, they are more like the lighthouses that have been constantly ignored because if the societal and familial programming that has constantly turned attention from the truth rather than toward it. People get glimpses of the light when they relax the attention that is given to programmed beliefs founded on illusion and fear.

Man may in all earnestness move toward truth by intention and desire. With proper guidance from one who has themselves realized the truth of the root and with the proper tools to take the awareness to the direct experience of the root of the tree one can easily master the illusions of life and learn to separate them from the Truth of the absolute nature of themselves.
Quote:
MYSTICISM
=========
World Book Dictionary defines 'mysticism' as: the doctrine that truth or God may be known through spiritual insight, independent of the mind ...
Direct contact with the absolute is the spiritual insight that supersedes all imaginative illusions of the mind of the ego. It is direct communion of soul and universal mind, or what is also called the Holy Spirit.






One Sunday morning, the pastor noticed little Alex
standing in the foyer of the church staring up at a large
plaque. It was covered with names and small American
flags mounted on either side of it.

The six-year old had been staring at the plaque for some
time, so the pastor walked up, stood beside the little
boy, and said quietly, 'Good morning Alex.'

''Good morning Pastor,' he replied, still focused on the
plaque. 'Pastor, what is this?'

The pastor said, 'Well son, it's a memorial to all the
young men and women who died in the service.'

Soberly, they just stood together, staring at the large
plaque.

Finally, little Alex's voice, barely audible and trembling
with fear asked, 'Which service, the 8:30 or 10:45?'
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/25/08 04:13 PM

COMMUNICATING WHAT ONE REALLY MEANS IS A COMPLEX PROCESS
========================================================
TT, your amusing story illustrates what happens when there is miscommunication.
===============
I have no idea if the following is true, or not, but I have in my file the story of an incident where miscommunication in English caused a major air crash several years ago.

Quote:
But possibly the most dire example of miscommunication
was the one where a translator at the Swiss Embassy in
Tokyo may have caused the deaths of 175,000 people.

As the Second World War was winding down the Allies
unleashed a terrible new weapon on Japan, on
Hiroshima, the Atomic Bomb. They then demanded that
Japan surrender.

Japan replied, through the Swiss,
that they could not (since their Cabinet was not in
session and only the Cabinet could make that
decision). The Swiss translator sent out the reply
saying that the Japanese WOULD not. So, to reinforce
their demands, the Allies dropped the second Atomic
Bomb on Nagasaki.


History and fiction--for example,the novel Wuthering Heights--is replete with tragedies brought about by miscommunication. And how about those reports about "weapons of mass destruction".

Interestingly, the Greek for "ill will, or hate" is 'misos'--the opposite of 'agape'. From it we probably get all our English words beginning with 'mis'.
===========================
I like the principle: For better or for worse, people need to keep on communicating until there is little, or no doubt about what is really meant.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/25/08 05:20 PM

The example in the story is not always in the miscommunication of information but also in the ability to comprehend meanings.


Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/25/08 10:42 PM

Posters, if you do not understand me, please ask me to clarify. When I send a message, I always accept that I am responsible for making clear what it is I mean.

If I fail to communicate, I will not blame you. Is this understood?

Please, feel free to question me until YOU understand what it is I mean. OK?

Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/28/08 09:58 PM

RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY AND HYPNOSIS
In September 1947, at 17, as a very green and yet skeptical kind of student, I entered Mount Allison University, Sackville, NB, http://www.mta.ca I entered to take the basic BA degree in preparation for teaching, preaching, law, whatever.

Looking back, I realized later, that I was fortunate indeed to have had as my faculty adviser the late Rev. Arthur Ebbutt--later a ThD--who was also the newly-appointed adviser in charge of all theological students of which there were 60 males and one female.Times have changed. Females now outnumber the males.

In a private meeting with my adviser I told him that I was very skeptical in matters of religion and the Bible. It was then he mentioned the word 'psychology'...and philosophy.

"I think you are the kind of student" he said, "who will enjoy the study of psychology".

Then, I had no idea what he meant by 'psychology'. He told me that it meant "the study of the mind" and he added: "Psychology comes under the department of Philosophy. If you choose this as your major, you will be under the guidance of Dr. Charlie Baxter--a PhD from the University of Toronto, and a truly humble person.

Interestingly, later I found out that Dr. Baxter had volunteered for the war (WW 2) as a private. When they later discovered his academic standing he was promoted to serve in other ways, as a captain.

Without hesitation I said, "OK, that's for me. Psychology it is, for now."

Because of my interest in psychology--which I later discovered is the child of pneumatology--I have been a student of what is commonly called hypnosis since the 1940's.

Later still, based on the word 'pneumatology', instead of using 'hypnotism' I started calling the phenomenon, 'pneumatism'.

Pneumatism is the power of the human spirit (the pneuma) and its ability to use the mind (psyche) and the body (the soma) as servants of the higher good.

Interestingly, pneumatologically, or spiritually, speaking experience has taught me that it is possible to measure how much imagination (including, faith+hope+love) any individual has. Over the years I have done any number of experiments with individuals and groups, which demonstrate this. Just the other day, I did it with a person, right over the phone.

IMO, THERE IS ONLY SELF-HYPNOSIS
Incidentally, all hypnosis is self-hypnosis. The master-subject model of hypnotism is an illusion. Check out the work of the father of American hypnosis, Dr. Milton Erickson--an MD and psychiatrist.
================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_H._Erickson
===============================================
The following, based on the pneumatological ability to imagine, is just a foot note. I will comment on what it means to me, later.

E(that is, the energy in and through all creation, as we observe and sense it)= M(ass) X C2 (speed of light, squared) + I(magination), which can include faith, hope and love.

It is my humble attempt to add to the famous Einstein equation the element of the imagination, to which he already alluded when he said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

Question: Could it be that it is the human imagination--used positively or negatively--which makes all the difference between a good or evil result?
Just asking, OK?

Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/28/08 10:42 PM

Just recently, I wrote to Wikepedia about Michio Kaku. The first entry was designated for speedy deletion.
But, take a look at what happened shortly after:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Michio_Kaku
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/29/08 04:34 AM

FAITH, CONFIDENCE AND THE PLACEBO/NOCEBO PHENOMENON
Confidence (From the Latin meaning, with trust, or faith). Several major articles in today's Financial Post, a Canadian daily journal on business, spoke of the role confidence plays in the economy. Markets rise and fall on whether or not we trust one another to be faithful, and honest in our business activities.
Nothing destroys economic values, including the value of currencies faster than lack of public trust.

It is widely accepted in medicine that bad news can make some people sick unto death. On the other hand, good news can often restore health to people who would die otherwise. The placebo phenomenon is a widely accepted one. So is the nocebo--bad news--phenomenon.

Pneumatology is about helping people find ways to have confidence, faith and trust, and to direct this power so that they do the most good.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/29/08 06:57 AM

Quote:
Question: Could it be that it is the human imagination--used positively or negatively--which makes all the difference between a good or evil result?

In the teachings of Jesus as expounded in the Bible the union of God and man takes place when man expands his awareness beyond the attachments of the ego and enters his mind into spirit.
Such was the premise for his claim, "I and my Father are One."
Sin or evil is the folly of egoic conscious immersion.
In order for imagination to be good in biblical terms it would have to be the imagination of universal mind or the mind that is united with spirit. Imagination that is situated within the boundaries of ego are filled with the illusions of fear, attachment, jealousy, greed etc etc.
Imagination that inspires great works and new discoveries which expand mankind beyond their present level of understanding, is the imagination that expands minds of man and conscious awareness permanently and is often linked to brief communion with higher levels of reality or omniscient mind. This was also inferred to by Joseph Campbell as ones bliss, when he said follow your bliss,(that which expands your consciousness permanently rather than temporarily).

My feeling is that Einstein in his dealings with energy and universal connected-ness in the unified field theory he sought to prove is linked to higher states of consciousness and not the random imaginings of man fueled by his ego.

The entirety of Christianity is founded on the premise of higher states of consciousness, on Christ-ed consciousness. All inference to good and evil is relative to union or separation with God.
"Satan" is a word for ego.
Faith can be applied to anything but when focused on God has dramatic effects on ones life. Faith when applied to an idea of God when there is no direct experience of Union or God is a nice idea with no point of contact for focus or intention. It is an imaginative impulse that is like a monkey jumping from branch to branch searching for the ideal banana as the mind changes with belief.
Unfortunately there is no placebo for God other than the imaginings of good, which when driven by the ego become personal and not universal, but when accidentally tapped into through random experiences such as those inspired and illumined by great inventors and poets during meditative states while still immersed in the ego reveal temporary glimpses of greater mind.
Faith and Good have to be universal to all regardless of changing beliefs of the ego.
E=mc2 is a scientific formula derived within relative boundaries of manifestation and not necessarily with the thought of God in mind. To take that relative formula and superimpose another thought of divine principles according to inspiration or imagination of the ego seems like trying to put frosting on a textbook to make it a better read.

If God is everything then everything is Good.
IF the ego is still dividing good from evil, inspiration comes while the ego stands surrounded by what it imagines as not God or God created. Such imagination is flawed.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/29/08 03:57 PM

KEEPING HIS EYE ON THE DOUGHNUT, NOT JUST THE HOLE,
Albert Einstein--p. 97; also in Transformation: Arts, Communication, Environment (1950) by Harry Holtzman, p. 138--said:
Quote:
I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
Cosmic Religion: With Other Opinions and Aphorisms (1931)

* Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving.
Letter to his son Eduard (5 February 1930)

* To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself.
Aphorism for a friend (18 September 1930) [Einstein Archive 36-598]; as quoted in Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel (1988) by Banesh Hoffman

* It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.
Letter to Vegetarian Watch-Tower (27 December 1930)

* I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.


Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/30/08 01:05 PM

About INSPIRATION, INSIGHT, IMAGINATION, INTUITION--all come from GOD, the infinite and eternal Presence, the Source of all that is. There is no need for anyone to ask reluctant gods, or a God, for these wonderful gifts.

All we need do is to surrender. That is, open ourselves, without any kind of resistance, equivocation, or reservation to the fact that in all things, GOD works with us, for good.

This leads us, within the eternal now, to have a sighted faith, a lively hope and a will that sees only the potential good in all circumstances and experiences, including that which, on the surface, appears to be evil--illusions created by what Eckart Tolle calls, "the egoic mind" (psyche). I agree with ET that, "all evils are "the effectof unconsciousness".

DELIVER US FROM EVIL
BTW, the so-called "Lord's Prayer" contains the petition to "Our Father, who art in heaven..." The RC version ends with the plea, "but deliver us from evil." It is said that Protestants, who gave us the King James version, added the doxology: "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever." (Matt. 6:13) It is not found in most modern versions.

Be that as it may, Christians offer this petition millions of times every day. And I am sure that all others religions make the same kind of petition in their own way.

This poses the questions: Does it do any real good?
How come so much people-made evil still goes on?
How come in many accidents some are saved and others are not?
And what about the millions who dies in what insurance companies call "acts of God"? BTW, I could write a novel about the many evils--in the form of suffering, pain and deaths, which I witnessed close up, especially from childhood to the end of WW 2.

If petitioning a "reluctant god" does not work, at least consistently, what does?

I agree with those--like for example, Eckhart Tolle, Einstein and the like who call us to a Cosmic kind of Religion:

I repeat what AE said: "I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research."
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/30/08 06:07 PM

Everything is "of God" but when god is filtered through the illusions of the ego inspiration doesn't always expand consciousness nor create good.
We see the results of inspiration and imagination that has tried to work for the good of mankind in scientific and medical advents such as the invention and prescriptions of thalidomide to reduce the effects of morning sickness which resulted in creating thousands of deformities in births.
Also the use of creosote as a wood preservative which added to the PCB's found in ground water, which we can add to the myriad of other contaminates such as lead, fertilizers, pesticides, growth hormones used in animals which are found in our food and water, and lets not forget antibiotics which are also finding their way into our food and water sources.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in the way science and technology has been inspired with the insight and imagination to invent for the good of humanity.

We intuitively know that there are ways to expand not only the quality of life but the consciousness to facilitate it. However the ego does not tap into universal consciousness when it is left to control the outcome of focus and energy because it does not discard failures which have harmed human life, it incorporates failure by staying within the same level of thought and limitation.
It is a lot like religion which focuses on standing outside of the likes of God, feeling so inferior that it must make a plea to the grace of omnipotent mind for forgiveness for being so low and unworthy and for a few crumbs off of the table of divine goodness and abundance.

Humans can create whatever they want because they are made in the image of God. However all inspiration, imagination and intuition that is filtered through the limitation of ego is not imbued with intelligence of omnipotence, but intelligence of personal realities which are saturated with fear and low self esteem.

It is imperative that man free himself from the influences of his ego before clarity of mind can tap into divine inspiration, insight, imagination and intuition.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/30/08 07:30 PM

(NB: A revised version of my last post)
AN AT-ONE-MENT APPROACH TO SPIRITUALITY, RELIGION AND THE LIKE
==============================================================
Philosophically and theologically speaking, the AOM approach is what I call unitheistic--similar to panentheism. I prefer to use 'unitheism' because it avoids any confusion with pantheism (God is the sum of all things).

As a unitheist, I try to make it clear that, for me, GOD is not a personal, human-like, fatherly and masculine being to whom anyone can point and say: There He is. For me, this would making an idol with the mind (psyche)--a tool of the ego.

MY PERCEPTION OF GOD
I perceive of GOD as the sum of all things--physical, mental and spiritual, which is in the process of becoming. This is the essence of process theology as spoken of by Charles Hartshorne and Alfred North Whitehead.

Unitheism is totally inclusive. While it encourages people to gather in creative community groups, small or large, it does so, not with the idea of imposing controls, but so that the community can better serve the common good of all people. Loners are free to be loners, if they so choose. If unitheism has one rule, it is the Love-based Golden Rule: Do to and for others what you would like others to do to and for you.

Unitheism makes no pretense that it has the one and only absolute truth; or that it is the only way to truth. This is why it welcomes all the questions of the philosophies, all the probing of the sciences and encourages the moral and ethical us of all the creative arts. Yes, the sciences and the arts can used to do good, or evil.

About INSPIRATION, INSIGHT, IMAGINATION, INTUITION--all come from GOD, source, the infinite and eternal Presence, the Source of all that is. There is no need for anyone to ask reluctant gods, or a God, for these wonderful gifts.

All we need do is to surrender. That is, open ourselves, be without any kind of resistance, equivocation, or reservation to the fact that in all things, GOD works with us, for good.

GOD AND EVIL
This leads us, within the eternal now, to have a sighted faith, a lively hope and a will that sees only the potential good in all circumstances and experiences, including that which, on the surface, appears to be evil--illusions created by what Eckart Tolle calls, "the egoic mind" (psyche). I agree with ET that, "all evils are "the effect of unconsciousness".

Anyone notice that EVIL is LIVE backwards?
Evil cannot Live in the light of consciousness. Therefore, be conscious of the NOW and shine a light all evil--that cause of so much pain and suffering.

Interestingly the last petition in the so-called "Lord's Prayer" has to do with evil: "Our Father, who art in heaven..." Some versions, including the Douay Version (1609) (approved by Roman Catholicism) ends with the plea, "but deliver us from evil."

It is said that Protestants, who gave us the King James version (1611), added the doxology: "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever." (Matt. 6:13) It is not found in most modern versions.

Be that as it may, Christians offer this petition millions of times every day. And I am sure that all others religions make the same kind of petition in their own way.

This poses questions such as: Does it do any real good?
How come so much people-made evil still goes on?
How come in many accidents some are saved and others are not?
And what about the millions who dies in what insurance companies call "acts of God"? BTW, I could write a novel about the many evils--in the form of suffering, pain and deaths, which I witnessed close up, especially from childhood to the end of WW 2.

If petitioning a "reluctant god" does not work, at least consistently, what does work?

WHAT WORKS FOR ME
I agree with those--like for example, Eckhart Tolle, Einstein and all process thinkers, who call us to a Cosmic, inclusive and integrative kind of Religion:

I repeat what AE said: "I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research."
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 08/30/08 08:09 PM

Quote:
Everything is "of God" but when god is filtered through the illusions of the ego inspiration doesn't always expand consciousness nor create good.
Sounds good to me, TT. The ego tends to confuse knowledge with wisdom--the moral, ethical and loving use of knowledge.

So many of us allow ourselves to be tricked, by the ego, to create a 'god' in our own image. We need to surrender the ego and let it happen the other way round--let GOD be the Presence in us.

As Eckhart Tolle points out--(pages 140-142, and 224 of THE POWER OF NOW)--the Source, the Unmanifested is the infinity of space and the eternity of time--the two essential attributes of what I mean when I write, GOD. On page 224 he writes:
Quote:
God is Being itself, not a being.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/02/08 02:56 PM

I assume you quote scripture from the bible because you see it as an authority since you use scripture to prove a point on one hand, yet, at other times, you say that your perception of God is impersonal on the other?

Also, you've mentioned that you see Eckhart Tolle as presenting the truth, which surprises me. Eckhart Tolle's references to scripture are interpretive, whereas when you have referred to scripture, which I've looked up every time, you do not interpret or give your own bent, but really have taken the time to take and use in context, which I really admire. You don't twist it to mean what you want it to say like Eckhart Tolle does. Check it out for yourself. I think you'll see that you are much more consistent than he is. The only part that I take issue with is your saying God is impersonal when the bible is pretty clear on that. Maybe the old testament hasn't been your focus as much as the new testament. But even in the new testament, Jesus clearly states that He and the Father are One, that He is to be worshiped as Lord. So either Jesus was crazy or He really is God. Eckhart Tolle doesn't get it. It seems you are closer than the truth than the so-called experts you may be trying to rely on to valid your views. I'd say, stick with your own path of seeking the truth, especially biblically. You're closer to it than some of those you quote.

Tolle thinks Buddha and Jesus were basically the same person, the whole Christ-consciousness theory. He is so far off on this. Buddha didn't die and rise again, or even claim to. He didn't claim to be God, Jesus did. Buddhism doesn't support a personal God, Jesus does... very personal, about as personal as you can get, AND one that is in everything, created everything and will resolve everything in the end. The Dalai Lama doesn't even believe in a god, let alone God, or prayer... just being happy. Try that on your own... aarrgg. I've tried just being happy and then I look at all the suffering in the world, babies starving, and it gets really hard to do without believing in a personal God that promises to resolve it all.... what a big job .. but I guess a God who IS LOVE can do that. Why does a God that is pure Love allow all this crap to happen? I can hardly wait to find out. It will take a huge paradigm shift and I don't think we're there quite yet... So I say, follow your own research and not someone else's, meditating on that idea of pure Love... relate to that ... bend our minds around that ... and stay open until it's clear... don't let our minds solidify around someone elses philosophy, and we might get there some day. Like I said, I can hardly wait. I just love those ah-ha moments and that's going to be the best one.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/02/08 05:39 PM

Jesus, when he said "I and my Father are one" stated the union between the relative and the spirit. That fact that he spoke of himself and the Father was a pretty good indicator that there were two images he was speaking of. One was not physical and the other was a physical reflection of Christ/God consciousness.
He again supported this statement with
Jn 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. and again, Jn 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

In further discourses to speak of Christ consciousness he described himself as both the Son of Man and the Son of God, having been born in the flesh and having traversed the path of righteousness to be born again as the Christed Son of God. He prescribed the path of righteousness and to be born again to all men and women, not to worship himself, Jesus the man but to worship the Christ in all men.
Ps 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
There is reference to his own evolution and a previous incarnation of Jesus and John the Baptist as Elisha and Elijah where Elisha/Jesus was the student of John/Elijah in Matthew 3:
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


When Jesus said: Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him. He recognized his former teacher Elijah and was relating the role playing where in this time he was to be the Christed master and John to play a lesser role. In surrendering to God's plan and will he (John) baptized Jesus and Jesus in being born again in that moment saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him, was Christed and became the Son of God: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased relegating power of God in a man of righteousness where the son of man is born again into the Son of God.
Again in another passage Jesus talks about Christ Consciousness where he states he Jesus is not THE GOD: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Saying "the son" he is not making it personal (Claiming to be the only Son) but universal to all of man which he spoke of when he said "Ye are Gods." It was the Christian Church who dictated that Jesus was the ONLY Son of God, which was for the purpose of control and manipulation, to keep the masses subservient to the Church as the Church became twisted like the Pharisees in Jesus' time.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/02/08 07:05 PM

Being made in the image of God is not the same as being made to BE God. Is your image in the mirror you? Or is it a reflection of the real you? Can it become you? This is basic physics. Reflection of light is not the same as light. There is a source for that light that is reflected. Don't you think the source is worth reaching for rather than trying to become something you can't become but can only emulate if you hold still enough to do so? By your own will, I don't think so. By grace? By the power of source? It's worth looking deeper. Don't stop at manmade platitudes. Keep thinking. Stay open. As soon as you think you've got it.. it's slips out of your hands. You sounded more knowledgeable when you were in wonderment. Now THAT'S surrender.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/02/08 08:33 PM

when someone interprets the bible, analyzes it and turns it into metaphysics, using it as a resource for validation and yet doing exactly the opposite of what it states clearly we are not to do, interpret, they will get caught up in a never-ending cycle of new age discovery and ancient spiritual enlightenment, but it only feeds the ego causing one to believe that they can be God ... a trap the ego would love for us to believe. If the ego is to truly die, we have to accept that we are not and will never be God, a hard fact for the ego to accept, and yet that is the truth that will set us free. Personally, I've come to a place in my life where I'd rather be the child of God than God Himself. I'm more than happy with that role.. the beloved child of God.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/03/08 12:18 AM

Quote:
You sounded more knowledgeable when you were in wonderment. Now THAT'S surrender.

That's a personal judgment...Sounds like...Sounds more...

Surrender cannot be quantified but recognized.

Quote:
I've come to a place in my life where I'd rather be the child of God than God Himself. I'm more than happy with that role.. the beloved child of God.

Happiness by definition is still a definition of happiness.
The image of God is consciousness reflected. One cannot be something other than what they are only idealize themselves as something. Consciousness or God whether it be a reflection of the original is still God. We only make assumptions as to how much we contain god in images and how much we surrender ourselves to the original through the reflections of God in self measurement.

When someone interprets the reflections of god and turns it into metaphysics, using it as a resource for validation, they will get caught up in a never-ending cycle of new age discovery and ancient spiritual enlightenment, but it only feeds the ego causing one to believe that they can't be God, because they have limited themselves and God to finite possibilities.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/03/08 04:53 AM

Quote:
Jesus clearly states that He and the Father are One, that He is to be worshiped as Lord. So either Jesus was crazy or He really is God.
Anon, check out John 17. Let's dialogue. I ask, where does it say that we are separate from Jesus and GOD?

20 “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message.

21 I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.

22 “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one.

23 I am in them and you are in me. May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me.


24 Father, I want these whom you have given me to be with me where I am. Then they can see all the glory you gave me because you loved me even before the world began!

25 “O righteous Father, the world doesn’t know you, but I do; and these disciples know you sent me.

26 I have revealed you to them, and I will continue to do so. Then your love for me will be in them, and I will be in them.”

It seems to me that Jesus is saying: By the power of faith and Love, we are one with him and GOD. Show me where he says otherwise.

John 17:20-26 (New Living Translation)
New Living Translation (NLT)
The crest of the United Church of Canada contains the words:
THAT ALL MAY BE ONE
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/03/08 06:38 PM

AND SPEAKING OF ONENESS:
In my opinion, HOW we perceive the NOW tells us WHO we are.

HOW is an acronym which I use as a short way of expressing our being ready and willing to be honest with ourselves; open and transparent with others, and willing to give good will (that is, love without ego-based emotionalism) to all that is, including nature, circumstances and people.

NOW stands for Nature as perceived by the senses; O stands for our One-ment with all that is--GOD; and W stands for our being ready to meditate on WHO--along with all that is--we are becoming. As we meditate on this let us not be afraid to ask some basic questions about: What...? When...? Where...? Why?...and, Who...we are.
This helps me keep focused in the NOW and come to greater consciousness--a fully functioning and pneuma-like human being capable of living on the cutting edge of time. Do a search on pneuma and pneumatology--the study of spirituality, or consciousness.

Pneumatology includes psychology--the study of how the psyche (the unconscious and animal-like mind) operates. It also includes somatology--the study of the somatic things--the physics, chemistry and the like--which make up the hardware of our computer-like body. But our psyches (software) and somas (hardware)--tools of the ego--are there, not to master, but to serve our pneumas--in charge of programming and operating.

I feel that failure to understand this is the root cause of all evil, anti-social and immoral behaviour, including allowing the harm we do to ourselves when we given in to frustration and despair. Comprehending this is the key to being at one with GOD and part of the whole process of evolution--the process of becoming who we are, co-creators with GOD.

Moral, ethical and loving agnostics and atheists--that is, people who want to be descent and just human beings free from regrets about the past, bitter cynicism in the now and fearful and despairing about the future--let me assure you: If you have problems with god-talk, so do I.

Therefore, I do not insist that you have to use words in the same way many Christians do. Some Christians like to speak of God as the Holy Trinity---Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

There was a time when I felt OK with this verbiage. Not any longer. Now I like using the acronym, GOD. I also like using the null symbol--0 with a / through it, like I use in my signature. Keep in mind it is an acronym, not a noun. If this means nothing to you, I understand.

Some writers, such as Eckart Tolle, speaks of the Presence. It would be interesting to see: What word would make you feel comfortable? Any suggestion as to a word you would like to invent?
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/06/08 01:10 AM

I think I've kept up with reading this thread. I recall being often inspired as it developed; but I don't know what to respond to (or have the time to review it now?). So let me say something that is only obliquely related to my memories of this thread.
===

I think employing an acronym is a useful teaching tool, as well as a creative, artistic expression.

I like the way different religions serve as an illustration of how and what to seek, and the way they offer wise advice about living harmoniously and sustainably (with everlasting life). Similarly, acronyms and symbols offer a way to consolidate a lot of wisdom into a small point.

I suppose the whole "worshiping idols" problem comes up, but it's just a matter of knowing what your doing; not seeing things as a child might, with the idol as primary, but instead seeing the idol as a shorthand for so much more wisdom, experience, and insight.

I can see why religions sometimes frown on idols, because after one generation the children can easily begin missing the point, and begin seeing the idol as primary.
But as a teaching tool, or a point to focus a discussion upon, symbols and acronyms are a good thing, aren't they?
smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/06/08 03:57 AM

Intelligence is not required....
Language often fails to bring out the essence of reality and so when we describe our experiences or thoughts into language or symbolism there is no universal requirement to automatically generate understanding or comprehension.
It is one thing to understand a car and that they exist in the world, then it is another to drive one and understand how it feels to drive one, then there is the understanding of the mechanics of the car and while driving one may have an expanded awareness of the cars mechanical function, its position in traffic and necessity of use in traveling across town etc. etc.
When talking about God, without the experience of God, all language and symbolism is relative to the person speaking and their beliefs and then whatever language and symbolic comprehension of one receptive to the creator of the language or symbols.
Look at it this way. If God created everything, how come we do not all understand God and his creation the same way or in fact at all?
If there could be such a gap between God's language and our understanding, imagine how ineffective our own language and symbology is.
It was once described to me that Sanskrit is the oldest living language on Earth with its origin based on resonance. Humans having lost their ability to naturally communicate intuitively or by telepathic means began to form language based on the resonant vibration of each object.
Take for instance the word "Cow." If no one had seen a "Cow" there would be no association to the animal itself, its shape, its habits, its smell, its relative size.. In the vibrational language of Sanskrit the word would imbue every aspect of its being into conscious awareness when spoken.
In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali there is a word called Samyamah which refers to tuning to the vibrational resonance of an object to instantly know everything about it.
In the recent discoveries of String Theory it is said that particles are created by vibratory tuning, like consciousness manufacturing time and space by intention leaving a vibratory blueprint within the object that can be tuned into.
If this vibrational resonance were to be described as God's language we could more closely understand the nature of intuition or in more spiritual terms the voice of God or the Holy spirit and how we tune into God as Jesus described his communion with God.

With the way we create symbols and language and with the ego being partial to sense oriented memory association, symbols trigger reactions rather than complete knowledge.
If someone places a Cross and a swastika next to each other the senses connect to belief and opinion as it is oriented to some kind of knowledge or memory, and also feelings regardless of the intent of whoever places the symbols out to view.

I suppose one could say symbols and acronyms are a good thing, but then if they spark resentment due to an opposing belief are they still good? And are those who create symbols, in an position of natural authority connected to the essence of truth and reality in which to lead others to their own true connection to truth and reality?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/07/08 06:17 PM

Quote:

Some writers, such as Eckart Tolle, speaks of the Presence.
In this case Tolle speaks of the Absolute/Trnascendant/Presence, not from the imagination but from his relationship of constant awareness. This in itself has an impact on others when he speaks from that awareness because it carries a resonance, or unified vibrational connection. Even if those who are listening to him speak do not have a direct experience of it, it still resonates at deep levels of the mind. This is the same Christed consciousness that Jesus spoke of to his disciples when he encouraged them to spread the word, the Aum, the teaching of the God. It is through this resonance that creation responds and consciousness manipulates waves into particles.
To simply make up a word from the limited surface of the mind and its imaginative ego will never have the same unified effect.
One of the reasons the bible mentions the word of God or that Eastern practices speak of meditating on the word of God or the Aum is because it is like the root of the tree.
While the imagination is watering branches of the tree of life by creating symbols that resonate with the ego and personality, the heart is connected to the root and is nourished by the central vibratory resonance that is in all things.
Tolle speaks of that presence of resonant being, the underlying nature of all of reality which when tuned into brings the mind to the now or the absolute potential of the Universe or as it is sometimes called the mind of God.

The Science of Yoga (union) exists because of the mechanics involved that are the nature of reality. One only need tap into the nature of reality by using the tools that allow you to do so.
By connecting to it often enough or continuously, you become one with it.
By making up words and symbols and idealizing it in the imagination you stand outside of it and by egoic determination search through the box of past impressions and fabricate according to beliefs in an idea or ideas.
The absolute underlies all ideas and it underlies all egoic treasure chests of collected impressions and imaginings of the mind based on the surface impressions of the mind and its connection to the outward directed senses.
The mind has to be directed toward the subtle nature of reality which are underlying the surface senses which are ego based and judgmental, it has to be directed inward rather than outward.

You can not by the intention of ego, intend to be in the now, or be non-judgmental and unconditioned by feelings and the past. It is not a process of self hypnosis in fact the ego is the product of self hypnosis.
Intellectual understanding has to be expanded and all impressions of the past cleansed of stress to prepare the nervous system for a clear experience of the Now.

Symbolism when generated without the experience of the "Presence/Absolute/Transcendetal now," is like throwing darts at a dart board on the moon while facing away from it blindfolded.
It feels good to the ego but has no resonant connection to the absolute reality which is beyond all beliefs and feelings.
Even if you had all 6 billion people on the planet get together and make up a word that feels good it would not bring God or the presence into being or into experience. The history of religion should be evidence enough of that reality.

Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/10/08 05:17 PM

Quote:
The Science of Yoga (union) exists because of the mechanics involved that are the nature of reality. One only need tap into the nature of reality by using the tools that allow you to do so.
TT, thanks for pointing this out. You are perhaps aware that Jesus advocated "yoga".

Check out Matthew 11: 25-30.
28 Then Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.”
The Greek NT for, 'yoke' is ZUGOS. I understand that it is also the Greek for yoga.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/11/08 12:29 AM

Here I will add: Yoga simply means that which is "one with all that is"--what I call GOD--all that is good, orderly and well designed.

Atheists, feel free to reject God, as a personal being. So do I.But is it possible for you to reject "all that is?"

Theists, if you know that God IS a personal and ALL POWERFUL being, feel free to introduce him/her to us. I am more than willing to meet him or her.

No substitutes, please!!!!
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/11/08 06:19 AM

Quote:
TT, thanks for pointing this out. You are perhaps aware that Jesus advocated "yoga".

He taught the mechanics/science of Union/Yoga, Spoke of the laws of Nature and explained God in simple terms. He taught that it was the eventual destiny of all humans to return to self awareness and to unite with God, and that all suffering was due to the ego and the attention man gives to the illusion of the senses instead of the eternal spirit.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/12/08 05:01 PM

HOW we perceive the NOW tells us WHO we are.
================================================================
A MEDITATION:
Posters: You--or someone you respect--can put this on a tape, or on a disc. Then it can be used it as a meditation.

Begin by taking a position that is comfortable for you--perhaps with the kind of background music you prefer--in a quiet place. Then listen to, or even just speak the following words to yourself:


The following words will help you relax, physically, mentally and spiritually, and bring into the INFINITE AND ETERNAL PRESENCE:
HOW is a useful acronym. It helps us remember the following principles: to be ready and willing to be
honest with self and others;

[Now pause...Breathe deeply, three...or four...times and just let the meaning of these words sink in almost without you having to think much about it. ...Now continue.]

Be open, honest and transparent, with self and others. Be willing to give good will (that is, love without ego-based emotionalism) to all that is, including nature, circumstances and people.

Pause...and repeat the above instruction about deep and relaxed breathing...

NOW is a useful acronym, also.
The N is for Nature and Nuture as perceived by the senses, with the support of Pneumature (our spiritual nature) creating a Oneness with all that is--GOD
--all Goodness, Order and Design.

W is for our being Willing and ready to meditate on
Who we are.

Pause...

WHO are we?
We are:
Wholistic beings in the process of becoming more so.
We are people who perceive the Wonder of life; the
Wow!!! in all that is. We are
Humane and Humble (teachable) beings. We are
Ontological beings
who, with others, feel good about being
in the process of becoming more so, even
One with GOD. If you prefer another term to help you be at one with the highest power, knowledge or goodness, feel free to use it.

Pause...
As we meditate on the reality of
WHO we are,
let us not be afraid to ask some basic questions about all that we perceive:

Let us ask about the
What...? When...? Where...? Why?...and, Who...? of all that we experience.

This can help us keep focused in the NOW and on our coming to greater and greater consciousness as a fully-functioning and pneuma (spiritual)-like human beings capable of living on the cutting edge of time--the infinite and eternal NOW. Feel free to add philosophical and/or theological concepts which vibrate with the what make you feel OK.

[Pause... Meditate for as long as you wish.... Then, with a sense of
The PRESENCE of all that is, return, energized to your regular activities.]

==============================================================
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 01:16 AM

What would be the objective of this mood making scenario, and why would it be effective?
Also where does this come from?
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 02:37 AM

I've always seen it as a fundemental problem that people don't sit back and "tune in" enough; but they often spend hours or days or even years, caught up in the rat-race of some illusion (which is often somewhat evil by religious standards).
Does this sound similar?

This comes from learning about religious ethics, I think (and maybe some from John Lennon, Wm. James, ...and others).

~ smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 03:07 AM

Originally Posted By: samwik
I've always seen it as a fundemental problem that people don't sit back and "tune in" enough; but they often spend hours or days or even years, caught up in the rat-race of some illusion (which is often somewhat evil by religious standards).
Does this sound similar?

This comes from learning about religious ethics, I think (and maybe some from John Lennon, Wm. James, ...and others).

~ smile

I was interested in knowing where the particular meditation comes from.
Speaking of illusions.. If tuning in is based on an illusion does it really accomplish anything?
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 04:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Speaking of illusions.. If tuning in is based on an illusion does it really accomplish anything?


No, probably never (or rarely); but what if "tuning in" (pausing to reflect, or..

Sorry, I got cut off. It was supposed to say:

No, probably never (or rarely); but what if "tuning in" (pausing to reflect, or...?) is not "based on an illusion?"

~ confused
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 04:19 AM

Originally Posted By: samwik
I've always seen it as a fundamental problem that people don't sit back and "tune in" enough...
Sam, I have the feeling that you caught the essence of, the meaning behind, what I wrote--inspired by things I have read over the years. Other than putting the ideas together in my way, I make no other claims.

Interestingly, in Aramaic--the language of Jesus, and other semitic languages--the word we translate as 'pray' does not mean 'to ask' the gods, or God, for favours. It means 'to tune in to' , or 'connect with', the ultimate reality; that which is beyond the illusion of mere matter.

BTW, without judging the need for the material world--the world of body and mind--Eckhart Tolle, and many others like him, including the ones you mentioned, recommend this approach.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 04:38 AM

Hiya Revl.

I thought this sounded familiar, but of course the challenge is to carry this into life, sharing by example....
...or words to that effect.

...and avoiding illusion (or at least recognizing it) is a challenge too.

Thanks,
smile

p.s. See edit above (#27713).
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 06:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: samwik
I've always seen it as a fundamental problem that people don't sit back and "tune in" enough...
Sam, I have the feeling that you caught the essence of, the meaning behind, what I wrote--inspired by things I have read over the years. Other than putting the ideas together in my way, I make no other claims.

Interestingly, in Aramaic--the language of Jesus, and other semitic languages--the word we translate as 'pray' does not mean 'to ask' the gods, or God, for favours. It means 'to tune in to' , or 'connect with', the ultimate reality; that which is beyond the illusion of mere matter.

BTW, without judging the need for the material world--the world of body and mind--Eckhart Tolle, and many others like him, including the ones you mentioned, recommend this approach.
All those who have a direct experience of the absolute recommend a relationship with it. To tune into it.
However if you have never driven a car it would stand to reason you wouldn't be very effective at becoming proficient at driving by thinking about it, even if you thought about it alot.
So thinking about communing with God when you have no direct experience of God even if you think about God alot will not bring God closer to you.
There is a term called praying without ceasing, and it is in reference to constant contact or awareness with God/Presence/Absolute.
The surface of the mind is cluttered with thoughts, some 50-60,000 of them according to Stanford research. Non of those thoughts are attuned to God or the absolute. If they were there would be no illusions cast upon the world and there would be no separation of God and human awareness of God.

One of Tolle's inadequacies is that his awakening was not due to a systematic approach but rather an instantaneous moment of awareness, which gives him no point of reference to get there. What he speaks about is much like what Krishnamuri spoke of. Truth without the awareness of the approach to it.
What appeals to the ego and most of humanity when these people speak of their experiences is the possibility of instant gratification, or the possibility of it just happening to them as well.
Unfortunately Krishnamurti wasn't able to understand why no one else experienced what he did and as a result could not explain how one would get from where they were to his experience of God.
Tolle hasn't that missing piece of the puzzle, the same missing piece that Krishnamurti was without.

Tho it does make people feel better to be doing something rather than nothing, it does not help to connect God to experience just by keeping busy with thoughts of an imagined presence of being. As I mentioned once before, Religion has been our greatest example of that hope, and misconception.

Just a thought, but if the presence is all around you, in you and through you always, and you have not seen, felt or been aware of it. What would you look for by inventing an action such as self prescribed meditation? What would you tune into if you knew not what it is that was missing from your daily experience?
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 04:30 PM

TT,
Quote:
Just a thought, but if the presence is all around you, in you and through you always, and you have not seen, felt or been aware of it.
Question regarding this sentence: Did you leave it incomplete for a good reason?
Quote:
What would you look for by inventing an action such as self prescribed meditation?
Is this a rhetorical question? If it is rhetorical, are you trying to persuade readers that you have evidence of an occult truth--one known only to you?

If so, we are all ears.

BTW, because they tend to put people on the defensive, I try to avoid asking rhetorical questions. Because I find it difficult to know what the proposer has in mind, I also try to avoid answering them. Without claiming that I have The Truth I prefer to dialogue and learn from others about the nature and art of meditation.

Quote:
What would you tune into if you knew not what it is that was missing from your daily experience?
I have no idea what you have in mind. What do you have in mind? Are we having a dialogue, here? Or, is it a debate? My main interest is in dialogue.

_________________________
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TT,
Quote:
Just a thought, but if the presence is all around you, in you and through you always, and you have not seen, felt or been aware of it.
Question regarding this sentence: Did you leave it incomplete for a good reason?

It was complete and complemented when I added the questions What would you look for by inventing an action such as self prescribed meditation? What would you tune into if you knew not what it is that was missing from your daily experience?

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TT,
Quote:
What would you look for by inventing an action such as self prescribed meditation?
Is this a rhetorical question? If it is rhetorical, are you trying to persuade readers that you have evidence of an occult truth--one known only to you?

No not rhetorical, and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to believe in illusions by making something up. That is the point of the dialogue. If you aren't in touch with something you want to be connected to then it stands to reason, thinking about it does not make it so.
So in light of common sense, the question becomes revelatory when confronted honestly.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TT,
Quote:


BTW, because they tend to put people on the defensive, I try to avoid asking rhetorical questions. Because I find it difficult to know what the proposer has in mind, I also try to avoid answering them. Without claiming that I have The Truth I prefer to dialogue and learn from others about the nature and art of meditation.


Then you won't mind answering the question if it is not rhetorical and you won't need to be on the defensive unless you have something to defend.
By the way Truth needs no defense.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TT,
Quote:
What would you tune into if you knew not what it is that was missing from your daily experience?
I have no idea what you have in mind. What do you have in mind? Are we having a dialogue, here? Or, is it a debate? My main interest is in dialogue.
Obviously from the subjective, dialogue becomes a definition to use as an excuse to control the direction of a topic if one decides they are uncomfortable with direct communication, especially if the topic is over ones head.
I think the question was simple enough and on topic when it refers to philosophy, religion and their mechanical support, (in this case meditation or prayer).
If you don't know how to answer the question or if you can't then say so. If you feel threatened by it then I can see where you would use the dialogue routine to avoid it. That would be the political use of the word and would also reveal the most common trait of religious dogma.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 10:38 PM

I repeat: My main interest is in dialogue, not debate. And I do not use "dialogue" as, "...an excuse to control the direction of a topic..." (Your words.)

=================================
Quote:
If you don't know how to answer the question or if you can't then say so.

If you feel threatened by it then I can see where you would use the dialogue routine to avoid it. That would be the political use of the word and would also reveal the most common trait of religious dogma.
TT, I will leave it to readers, including the moderators, to ask you what you have in mind.

For the record: Religiously and theologically speaking, I have one basic principle, or doctrine--found in all the great religions: It is The Golden Rule. Is there anyone who does not know what this basic principle is?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 11:13 PM


Quote:
TT, I will leave it to readers, including the moderators, to ask you what you have in mind.

You already know what I have in mind. I told you, but for some odd reason you aren't able to comprehend the simplicity of it.


Quote:
My main interest is in dialogue. Without claiming that I have The Truth I prefer to dialogue and learn from others about the nature and art of meditation.
Does this mean that you are unwilling to share information regarding your own nature and art of meditation when asked for fear it will lead to a debate?

Quote:
For the record: Religiously and theologically speaking, I have one basic principle, or doctrine--found in all the great religions: It is The Golden Rule. Is there anyone who does not know what this basic principle is?

Then you would, according to your interest in dialogue (learn from others about the nature and art of meditation) be willing to give what others would give to you regarding information..

Quote:

I repeat: My main interest is in dialogue, not debate. And I do not use "dialogue" as, "...an excuse to control the direction of a topic..." (Your words.)

That remains to be seen. If you seek to gain without giving the same you neither follow a rule that is golden, nor do you dialogue without prejudice.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/13/08 11:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
All those who have a direct experience of the absolute recommend a relationship with it.

Wow! That should be a bumper sticker!
===>

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
The surface of the mind is cluttered with thoughts, some 50-60,000 of them according to Stanford research. Non of those thoughts are attuned to God or the absolute. If they were there would be no illusions cast upon the world and there would be no separation of God and human awareness of God.

I find focusing on "thoughts ...attuned to God or the absolute" is a way to quiet the mind "cluttered with thoughts" and again know and feel the connection with....

But what about the car?
I get my kids to try out the pedals and gearshift, and steering wheel (but not with the car running).
And I talk to them about what I'm doing (and why) as I'm driving sometimes.
I hope this'll help when they start driving a car themselves.

~ wink
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/14/08 03:03 AM

Quote:
I find focusing on "thoughts ...attuned to God or the absolute" is a way to quiet the mind "cluttered with thoughts" and again know and feel the connection with....

Prayer or meditation is a form of thought but not all thoughts lead to the experience of the absolute, and not all prayer is communion with God.
The TM group did some scientific research in conjunction with meditation and Abraham Maslow's "Peak experience."
They found that what Maharishi Mahesh Yogi explained within the mechanics of meditation was clearly experienced and substantiated by scientific measurement.
Using tools or keys to engage the deeper parts of the left and right hemisphere of the brain, brought the two halves into coherence where there was non during normal activity while awake.
Aligning the left and right hemisphere of the brain allowed the mind to settle into stillness and also gave the body a chance to relax even more than during normal sleep.
There are valid tools of meditation which are born of this natural inward direction to turn the mind inward and allow the body to rest and throw off stress.
Basically there are two ways to approach meditation successfully. Using a tool that expands the intellect and removes stress from the nervous system, and competent guidance from someone who has mastered the tools and can guide another toward their own experience of the absolute/God.
The Upanishads quote a rule. "Read scripture (words of the enlightened), meditate using a proven method, and surround yourself with enlightened company."

Some thoughts create expansion but then not all of them create permanent expansion. We experience this when we are happy due to certain thoughts but then when the thought is removed and an opposing thought is introduced the happiness goes with the happy thought.
Meditation should permanently expand the intellect and cleanse the nervous system of stress rather than act as an escape from stress and contraction of the mind due to the nature of stress related beliefs and ideas.

Once the intellect is expanded and stress removed from the nervous system the subtleties of the absolute become vibrant and the intuitive parts of the brain and nervous system become clear.
Quote:

But what about the car?
I get my kids to try out the pedals and gearshift, and steering wheel (but not with the car running).
And I talk to them about what I'm doing (and why) as I'm driving sometimes.
I hope this'll help when they start driving a car themselves.

More so than having them think about it and from their own ideas about what it is like.
Always the sensible approach is not to reinvent the wheel but to get to know the person who has mastered the process and have them teach you.
We use this example in every learning institution on the planet, but very few use this approach when it comes to God. Because the ego cannot surrender itself to something it cannot grasp within the boundaries of the egoic intellect, trying to invent God from the surface of the mind is less successful than inventing a wheel.
The outside world and the physical boundaries are easily grasped in mechanical redundancy of habit, and we do not have to learn to intuit how these processes work if we give ourselves to the authority of mastery that make themselves available by our own prescribed rules and ideas.
But something that lives outside limitation or personality and the boundaries of rules and ideas, as well as in them cannot so easily be contained by the surface of the mind and the 50-60,000 thoughts that are born of habit and egoic limitation.
It takes a greater initiative and deeper level of thought to engage the absolute and to make it a permanent part of ones awareness, and then with a direct experience of God comes the ability to surrender to it or become One with it. This is the approach to the atonement or as it has been coined by the new age the at-one-ment.
People try with drugs to alter the mind but it only gives them impetus to bolster their beliefs that there is something beyond what escapes them in the conscious state of awareness when they are seeking something greater.

There is a saying, "When the student is ready the Teacher will appear."
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/14/08 03:20 AM

Quote:
I find focusing on "thoughts ...attuned to God or the absolute" is a way to quiet the mind "cluttered with thoughts" and again know and feel the connection with....
Sam, by now you are no doubt aware that I like the way you approach the god-concept.

The only difference, it seems, is that I write the concept using the acronym, GOD. It helps me--I speak only for myself--avoid thinking of the creator as having any kind of mass, form and content. This is not unlike the approach of Buddhism--a non-theistic religion.

I have found that most so-called atheists do not deny what I call GOD. They are not against the idea that there is more to the universe than can be perceived by the senses.

When I really get the opportunity to have a good dialogue with them and can get across what I mean when I say "GOD" what I hear is this: "What I cannot accept is the idea that there is a God, or gods, with the power to will, act and do things as if He is a rational and loving being who created and is in control of the universe and all of the space-time continuum."

They are usually quite relieved when I say, "As a unitheist who believe in rational kind of spirituality, Neither do I. Spirituality does not require anyone to have a blind faith, or religion." Then things really open up and real dialogue begins.

Interestingly, the great inventor, Nicola Tesla, a Christian, advocated combining Christianity and Buddhism.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/14/08 12:01 PM

MOST ATHEISTS ARE JUST NON-THEISTS
==================================
As I have indicated above: I have found that when I have the opportunity to have an honest, open and transparent dialogue with rational people who say, "I am an atheist" I find that they do not deny what I call GOD.

Just recently, I met and had a long conversation with a person who told me he is an atheist. He is Don B--a former active member of the United Church of Canada, the church in which I was raised.

Don is a lawyer, and a public trustee. We are both involved in helping a senior who is going through a very trying time in afamily-court case involving finances and property. After many weeks trying to sort this out I am convinced that our client is the victim of much abuse.

My role is that of a volunteer on behalf of the Family Life Foundation. I have agreed to act, without a fee, as a mediator for the senior, who finds it very difficult to communicate what is happening to him. We have found that in this case our mutual client has been, and is, his own worse enemy. He is such a soft, trusting and easily-manipulated type that he has allowed himself to fall into a serious problem and is in danger of losing all his assets.

By the way, unlike the other turf-protecting and shark-like lawyers involved on both sides, Don welcomes my participation. When we got to talking about spiritual matters I found him to be a very rational, humane and caring human being with a deep moral and ethical concern for people.

When he told me that he is an atheist I asked him to describe for me the god-concept in which he was raised and now rejects. As I suspected: The theism in which he was raised was the one I rejected decades ago. Even as a student of theology I rejected what I now call the folk theism held by well meaning many folk theists. In my opinion, much of the theology of folk theism is just a pile of superstition--beliefs based on the blind kind of faith.

By the way, years ago I said "fair well" to this kind of blind faith: Interestingly, in my library I have the book, FAREWELL To God, a book by the late the Rev. Charles B. Templeton--a former evalgelist--who I knew very well and conversed with, more than once, before he died at 85.
This will put you in the picture:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2001/06/07/templeton_010607.html
http://www.tektonics.org/books/templefarervw.html
To the end, despite his "atheism", Chuck, as he was fondly known, was a devout believer in the essential message of Jesus--LOVE, EVEN YOUR ENEMIES.
[More on this story]

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/16/08 12:40 AM

Rev wrote
I have found that when I have the opportunity to have an honest, open and transparent dialogue with rational people who say, "I am an atheist" I find that they do not deny what I call GOD.

It's all a matter of defining your terms is it?
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/16/08 12:44 AM

That was me... Ellis... I have been in computer wasteland due to the hard drive dying and having to be replaced. It's working now though!
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/16/08 01:57 AM

Ellis, you answered the question I just asked myself, recently: I wonder what happened to Ellis?

Welcome back to the dialogue.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/16/08 04:22 PM

Good points Revl,
~be back later....
===

&
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Once the intellect is expanded and stress removed from the nervous system the subtleties of the absolute become vibrant and the intuitive parts of the brain and nervous system become clear.

Thanks TT,
...and your other points...
remind me of a tidbit I jotted down last year [from some Jesuit conference ("Chance or Purpose" perhaps?)]:

"Logical reasoning can lead us to know there is a way to know God; but not to know God."

~ smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/16/08 04:38 PM

Originally Posted By: samwik


Thanks TT,
...and your other points...
remind me of a tidbit I jotted down last year [from some Jesuit conference ("Chance or Purpose" perhaps?)]:

"Logical reasoning can lead us to know there is a way to know God; but not to know God."

~ smile


Logic isn't always clear.
If driven by the ego the point of reference is in personal beliefs and does not allow for objective reasoning.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/17/08 02:38 AM

Originally Posted By: samwik
Good points Revl,
~be back later....
Keep in mind I have no quarrel with theists who have no problem believing in God, as a personal being who gives meaning and purpose to their lives, purely on the basis of faith.

Theists an deists: Please understand that with the way my brain is wired, I have a problem thinking of God as a person, but I keep an open mind. Therefore, I can understand what makes some of us atheists, or agnostics.

For me--and I admit that I could be proved wrong: Unitheism--the idea that GOD, as the infinite and eternal NOW, or The Presence, is in and through all that is, including your person and mine--makes a lot of sense to me. Until something better comes along, here is the theological basis in which I believe and upon which I will act.

Moment by moment, and day by day, I make practical use of this concept. It helps me deal with life physically, mentally and spiritually.

Atheists and agnostics: Feel free to be part of this dialogue. As a unitheist I am not here to judge you, and I feel that most theists feel the same way.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/17/08 05:26 AM

So, is the discussion saying that the concept of whatever we individually perceive as god is the result of logical thought...even if that logical thought has proceeded by elimination to the stage where all that remains belongs to god? That in fact it is possible to deduce thjat god exists (in whatever form) by logical reasoning?

I would find it difficult to assume that such faith or belief is the result of logical deduction. The whole point is that logical argument depends upon proof. There is, and never has been, proof that that which people define as 'god' exists. That very irrationality is why faith is so strong. Belief is based on conviction, personal knowledge and understanding and emotional need and certainty-- but not logic. There is no logic in the behavioural conduct of faithful believers in a doctrine that is impossible to verify as the truth, to which they steadfastly hold.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/17/08 12:04 PM

Quote:
So, is the discussion saying that the concept of whatever we individually perceive as god is the result of logical thought...
IMO, this is a place for anyone to say: Here is what I believe. And I am willing to dialogue about it. Also, I am willing to dialogue with you as to the logic, or otherwise, of what you believe. It is also okay for us to change our minds.

THIS COULD BE INTERESTING: For those who want to debate that they are right and others are wrong: May I suggest that we could set up a panel to judge who wins. I would be very interested in hearing the "proofs" for the existence of gods, or God.

Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/17/08 03:18 PM

Quote:
I would find it difficult to assume that such faith or belief is the result of logical deduction.
Ellis, what is illogical about one having faith, even one that may prove to be wrong?

It seems to me that having a sighted-faith--one based on a rational foundation and the scientific method--is very logical indeed.

Adam Smith--the founder of classical economics--defined logic as, "the science of general principles of good and bad reasoning." Surely the man who believed in the "invisible Hand" had to be a man of some kind of faith. Obviously not a theocrat, he advocated pluralism and moderation.

http://www.adamsmithslostlegacy.com/2008/02/adam-smith-on-religous-institutions.html
Excellent article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/evangelicals
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/17/08 03:34 PM

THIS IS INTERESTING, and I agree with the thesis:State of the Union January/February 2005 Atlantic

The real religious divide in the United States isn't between the churched and the unchurched. It's between different kinds of believers, by Hanna Rosin

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/rosin
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/17/08 04:29 PM

Quote:
Ellis, what is illogical about one having faith, even one that may prove to be wrong?

I'll answer that..
Faith can be applied to anything. If you are such a proponent for symbolizing God that is not a person or a thing, and someone you engage believes he/she knows God as a person or thing, everything you say in regards to show me the proof will be met with something that has or has not a logical reasoning. If that logical/illogical reasoning fails to produce proof but bears the reflection of belief, and belief divides humanity into factions that begin to fight with each other, then faith becomes an illusion rather than something applied to an actual experience or a Universal reality.
Quote:

It seems to me that having a sighted-faith--one based on a rational foundation and the scientific method--is very logical indeed.
And if you apply that to the first statement you have just answered the question in a logical way. However mainstream science doesn't substantiate a universal God of any kind and Religious or spiritual science base their logic on the personal experience of God, the repeatability of states of consciousness, and the awareness of God at those levels of consciousness. This cannot be proven to an individual who has no experience but can be applied through the mechanics of the approach to lead one without experience to experience. Then the logic is that the burden of proof is laid upon those who wish to see for themselves rather than those who have already experienced God.
This then becomes the highest choice of humanity, to find God through free will.
Faith then is sighted when there is experience of universal law or principal or the experience of that experience such as having engaged a Saint or Son of God as is written of in scripture.
Quote:

The real religious divide in the United States isn't between the churched and the unchurched. It's between different kinds of believers
That'd be ego primarily. substantiating the reality that faith individualized into personal beliefs that are divided and separate from God and yet idealized as directed toward God (especially a personalized God), are applied to personal illusions rather than universal Truth.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/17/08 11:23 PM

Now, TT, tell us about your personal religious faith. Is it a logical one for you? And how, on a daily basis, does it affect the way you earn your living and spend it in the community--your concept of stewardship?




Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/18/08 12:42 AM

It is not wrong to base belief on illogical reasoning. It is, however, risky to assume that others will give the same degree of verity to the conclusions reached.

TT makes some very interesting points, especially the suggestion that the burden of proof for the existence of god is one that is easier to agree with if the person has already had experience of something that could be described by them as evidence of god. If belief in god is a desirable aim for someone then I suggest it will be easier for that person to make a free (whether true belief can ever be the result of coersion is another topic!) declaration of belief. Faith is a personal decision. If faith/belief is there then god (in the various manifold manifestations) will exist for that individual.

I do not think that "relgious division " has much to do with god and much more to do with all too human ego and illusion. (Similar to TT).
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/18/08 07:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Now, TT, tell us about your personal religious faith. Is it a logical one for you?

What I have faith in is beyond the personal, though it is personally experienced, beyond religious confinement of belief tho I have beliefs that include it, and intellectually it doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree with it, it still remains for it exceeds the logic of the mind that must confine itself to rules and boundaries.

I can only surrender to it.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
And how, on a daily basis, does it affect the way you earn your living and spend it in the community--your concept of stewardship?

How it affects the way I earn my living is that I don't fear lack, I don't struggle for money, I work when I want to, and what little money I make personally takes care of the little things I need to be of service to humanity.
Now, stewardship and service to humanity is not something I need worry about. Such ideas derived from personal belief often fail to understand the nature of God.
I find I'm where I need to be when I need to be there, and so is anything of value that I have to offer.
Money having the least value, I find what I have to give to bring one to their own experience of themselves and their creative power in the world as the only thing any man/woman can give that has value. Therefor what I do on a daily basis does not require me to earn a living but to live life to its fullest in comprehension of reality.
That creates an energetic that exceeds all relative wealth because it resonates outward into the world, and affects everything of permanence within humanity, whereas money only temporarily sustains that which is impermanent.

Stewardship is very much attached to religion and politics. It is twisted, judged, misunderstood, chased after in illusions of belief and ideals that to this day have failed to control the nature of human spiritual evolution, or change free will.
Each person must find their own experience of reality and relationship with the absolute. Only one who knows what is inside another man can make themselves available to assist them in their own self discovery. Anything else is a projection of selfish desire and delusion.
Only a man who is one with God and nature can be of assistance to another. Until one knows the Self they cannot know God or human destiny. And if one does not know the nature of ones Self they are unable to help themselves let alone be a steward for their community.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/18/08 12:13 PM

Quote:
Money having the least value, I find what I have to give to bring one to their own experience of themselves and their creative power in the world as the only thing any man/woman can give that has value....
I was an active UCC minister (1953-1994, Labrador, NL, New Brunswick, Montreal, Toronto) for over 40 years.

From the beginning, I believed in doing gospel as well as teaching/preaching it. Because of this I got involved in the lives of many people--and I am still doing it, in my re-directment period (BTW, I don't like the term, 'retire')

Yes, I spoke--and I still do speak--to people about the need to tap in to their own creative power. Over the decades many thousands responded positively to this message, which I gave not just from the pulpit and to my congregations.

I also gave it to many non-church members who attended the on-going lecture series under the general heading PNEUMATOLOGY--The study of the spirit (pneuma) while including the mind (psyche) and the body (soma). In this series I was helped medical doctors, psychologists, nutritionists and others interested in the healing of the whole person,

However, I found that a certain number of people, especially those who lived on the streets, were too physically, mentally and spiritually ill to take in, let alone act on, any kind of deep kind of soma-psycho-pneumatology.

With Matthew 25: 31-46 in mind, I was inspired to see that they needed a hand out well before they were in any condition to accept a hand up. Many responded well.

But many--no-doubt life-damaged souls--were just takers and had no idea of what it means to work in family and community. And there were those who acted as though they didn't even want to help themselves, let alone anyone else. I could write a long book on my experiences with the needy, of all kinds. I learned this hard lesson, early.

How do you, TT--Or anyone--respond to what Jesus says in Matthew?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/18/08 05:25 PM

If you read all of Matthew 25 it gives a clearer picture of karmic law.
Based on what talents or what karmic energies are stored within the field of time and space surrounding ones free will and choice determines the extent of ones direction toward spiritual union.

The meat, drink, clothing, all represent spiritual energies rather than physical food, clothing and drink. Obviously within the duality of time and space either reality of the unmanifest or manifest is reflected in the soul of man and what man is able to give determines what they have.
One who is neither rich in spirit or rich in material wealth is capable of giving anything of value to either kingdom.
The Kingdom of God which is idealized within the scripture of Matthew is not the material kingdom and it has no use for material things. What has value in the spiritual Kingdom is spiritual wealth, or the knowledge and experience of free flowing energy that is God energy.
The ego which confines itself to the material kingdom idealizes everything that supports the material body in comfort and in sensory fullness. That is of a personal nature and not of a universal nature. The material world comes and goes and is impermanent while the soul and the spiritual world exist always within the changing material worlds.
The coming of the groom symbolizes the awakening or being born again, within an incarnation of human life that is cumulative to the awareness of the Spirit within all things and the living from spirit rather than living from ego. Or being Christed as Jesus spoke of when he stated that he(the manifest) and the Father(unmanifest) were One.

So what one gives another man symbolizes the level of consciousness one lives in. If ones life is spent swirling in the level of the temporary physical world, one can only give to another what will temporarily satisfy the senses of the ego.
If one lives from spirit and gives what they can in food, clothing and drink for the soul, and nourishes the soul with God.

The symbolism of paragraph 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. represents the soul wrapped in karmic debt in the timelessness experienced in death. Which then can see what it has misconstrued as important in the physical life only to lose it all in death and then experience something far greater when the spirit is temporarily loosened from the grips of the ego. Being drawn toward the earthlife again it suffers the temporary awakening only to lose it again in the new life that it is born into losing all memory of the experience between life and of any previous lifetimes.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

This is what being born in sin refers to, in being born of karmic energetics based on the choices one has made in the lifetimes previous to the one they are in.


41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

This is not an endless cycle created by some domineering entity bent on subservience but by the free will of each human soul which is divinely endeared with the ability to create around them what they will based on what they deem as real.
The devil in paragraph 41 refers to the ego and its idea of eternal glory which is in reality the suffering of duality and separation of God. For the ego this is real and eternal, and it is also illusion and ignorance.

And so those who will steer their attention to the suffering of the material world and from their belief in the reality of the world around them will draw from the illusion to feed and support the illusion until such a time that they decide to do something different, and this can last for thousands of lifetimes.
When that time comes they might get a glimpse of a greater reality, much more expanded than the temporary illusions created in the suffering of ignorance and of the creative power of the soul that is beyond the ego. Then when the son of man accumulates knowledge and wealth of the spirit he becomes Christed and the Son of God.

That man by his very nature can only Give of God for he and his Father are one.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/18/08 11:23 PM

That made interesting reading TT. I wholeheartedly agree with you with the concept that through free choice son of 'man' becomes Son of God. However there is the posibility that such a choice, freely made, leads not to a belief in god ( however god is seen) but to the knowledge that 'god' does not exist. Cannot the realities of atheism have as much validity as the illusions created by belief?
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/19/08 12:31 AM

Ellis, this thread is a dialogue about the kind of philosophy of religion we have. Perhaps we need to dialogue about what it means to be religious.

Obviously, TT is revealing to us what he/she has as a philosophy of religion, which I find most interesting. I am most willing to do likewise.

Now, Ellis, tell us: What is your philosophy of religion?
To know this could be very helpful to all involved in this dialogue.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/19/08 02:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
That made interesting reading TT. I wholeheartedly agree with you with the concept that through free choice son of 'man' becomes Son of God. However there is the posibility that such a choice, freely made, leads not to a belief in god ( however god is seen) but to the knowledge that 'god' does not exist. Cannot the realities of atheism have as much validity as the illusions created by belief?

To answer the first part of the question regarding the proof that God does not exist..
When one becomes Christed or the Son of God, God is experienced not as a separate entity but within everything, and one experiences themselves as God.
God is the active part of the absolute, it by itself does not exist without the still part of consciousness or the energy of potential that is neither beginning or end, called the alpha and the omega or the absolute. It cannot be contained or defined, but it does express itself and can experience expression in the form of our being. We think of ourselves as isolated to our experiences or even isolated by our experiences, when we as physical bodies are reflections of consciousness itself.

If anyone has any fantasies about God they are dissolved when one becomes aware of themselves as the infinite consciousness they are, rather than the piece of the material world they believe they are through the identification of the ego.

If one believes they are an athiest or a thiest it is the same. It is a fabrication of the mind created in the experience of separation of God or separation from the awareness of unity.
The soul experienced is like a mirror facing a mirror. When you stand in between the two they reflect infinite reflections with each reflection having the same potential of energy to move in a direction. Energy does not recognize itself as good or bad nor does it see itself as anything static and solid. IT flows in and out of time and space and experience. Consciousness or God is that free flowing energy and it lives as experience, thought and desire. We identify with the thoughts and believe we are those thoughts when we are more than the thoughts, we are the creator of the thoughts and the activity that surrounds thought in experience and idea is merely reflection of thought.
Within the mirrors there is no real one single object of truth. Truth is what underlies and supports all of the images and the directions they take. Free will is imbued within each reflection to take a course and God being without boundaries is not limited to which course of action or where action will end, or an image of one kind or expression of one value. There is as many possibilities for experiences to express itself as there are possibilities for thought, expression and reflection. That is who we are, and that is God.

When we experience God we experience the reflection of God because God itself cannot be limited to an experience. Because god is not limited it can be experienced, but it will not be contained within the experience, nor does the experience of God remain static, it is ever changing and evolving as our awareness expands with the infinite.
We are both unmanifest and manifest, one does not exist without the other.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking


Obviously, TT is revealing to us what he/she has as a philosophy of religion, which I find most interesting. I am most willing to do likewise.

Actually I am putting into words what I experience.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/19/08 05:19 AM

I understand that you are describing your own experience, the reality and truth of which which no one can deny. I am also arguing for the validity of personal experience, but my experience happened to take a path heading in the opposite direction. As you say there are many possibilities. In fact I think we may in fact be closer philosophically than at first seems possible!
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/19/08 06:31 AM

I'd be interested in how you would exemplify that idea..
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/19/08 12:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
... As you say there are many possibilities. In fact I think we may in fact be closer philosophically than at first seems possible!
This, IMO, demonstrates the value of dialogue--a spiritual attitude of win/win, often absent in most forums. Too often we allow the ego (the unconscious psyche) to determine how the drama if life plays out.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/19/08 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: Ellis
... As you say there are many possibilities. In fact I think we may in fact be closer philosophically than at first seems possible!
This, IMO, demonstrates the value of dialogue--a spiritual attitude of win/win, often absent in most forums. Too often we allow the ego (the unconscious psyche) to determine how the drama if life plays out.

Trying to create a win win scenario is how the ego tries to isolate drama and control how life plays out.
Compassion is unconditional love and wisdom combined. It does not determine what is helpful and what is not helpful by getting emotionally attached to whether someone feels good about being ignorant of reality or whether they feel good about being enlightened.
Truth is not dependent on illusions of judgment based on whether someone feels they have won or gained something or lost something.
If someone loses their ignorance they win knowledge and that can lead to experience and wisdom. But if one decides to play moderator based on illusions of ignorance to keep everyone in the same playing field of ignorant awareness, that person does a disservice to himself and to others.

Some play too heavily in emotional attachments to how things look and try to control and manipulate based on definitions of social etiquette that is lost in the ignorance of ego.

Unconditional love sets no conditions. It supports the destruction of ignorance in favor of expanded awareness, and to the ego it never feels good, nor does the ego feel it wins anything, when its boundaries of ignorance and limitation are threatened.

That was also in the message given by Jesus in Matthew and in Luke:

Lk 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.


If you want to create a spiritual win win scenario then it would not include the soothing of the feelings and mindset of what he called the dead or those attached to the emotionalism of the body and the world around those emotions and feelings that are the ego. It would in fact require one to act as he did. Also exemplified in Matthew:

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.


The destruction of ignorance and of the ego is the spiritual sword that is wielded by God. This can never be accomplished by anyone with an ego. An ego cannot kill another ego for the Ego knows nothing of spirituality and God, and that is the greatest religious and philosophical boundary man lives with. Praching God without knowing God.
Spirituality is not true spirituality when manipulated or dictated by anyone with an ego that stands between spirit and the manifest and judges what is real based on personal philosophy and belief.

It's all God, so its all good. If it's all God everyone wins even when they think they are losing. In fact one stands to gain something greater if they lose what wasn't serving them in the beliefs that hold one to limitation.
Without being One with God, the ego projects degrees of God in their visual surroundings, and judgment is not of God but of belief and limitation.

Do you think you are without ego Rev. and capable of clearly recognizing a spiritual win win situation in everything, or do you believe God comes in packages that suit your personal definitions of spiritual win win scenario's?

Is your philosophy built of natural and universal laws that apply to everyone and everything or is it of a personal nature tuned to your beliefs and your ego?

I know your a proponent for what you call the Golden Rule, but is the rule "God's" rule or "ego's rule", and how would you tell the difference?


If you want to know if these are Rhetorical questions I would like to apply the dictionary definition of the word Rhetoric to imply these specific ideas:

2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.

Keeping the personal out of language more effectively allows it to come from a deeper awareness of thought then the reactive surface of the mind and its emotional shortcomings.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/20/08 06:49 AM

I am pondering how to exemplify my statement regarding a personal journey to truth and lack of faith!

I think that the story I told here a while ago has to probably get a second hearing. Certainly I have absolutely never even as a child, felt the need to believe in god, or had any tortured path to lack of faith. I had a happy childhood which allowed me to explore god, religion and faith, not from within my family (faith there was conventional and tepid) but in a non-frightening academic setting as well. I understood most people enjoyed some form of religious experience, and I loved the ceremony and music of the church (Anglican) but missed out on the emotional side of it all.

I stopped attending church and didn't miss it. Then I had my first child and lots went wrong. Both of us were close to death, we both survived, and, as I have stated before, I realised that at no time did I feel the need to pray or bargain with god, or wonder what would happen to either, or both of us, if we died. Because this surprised me I had a bit of a think about it and I realised I had not prayed or wondered because I did not believe in the power of prayer, god or the afterlife. So I guessed I was an atheist... but I have an issue with this label as the Rev and others like him, insist that I believe in Atheism. I don't. I have no knowledge of and am disinterested in the existence of a divine being /thing /whatever. Atheism is not a belief, to an atheist the absense of god is a statement of fact.

That was my very half hearted, undramatic journey to atheism. I do not necessarily think that others, having exactly my experiences would end at at the same place, though they might, and I do not ever try to convert people who believe in god. I couldn't anyway. People who are convinced that they have access to god are usually those from whom martrys are made and their faith is stronger than my possible persuasions. The thing is that I believe such strength does not always mean truth.

I am very much against the concept of win/win with regard to religion. A person's religious experience is part of their journey, and there can be NO wrong answer and no first prize.



Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/20/08 07:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis


I am very much against the concept of win/win with regard to religion. A person's religious experience is part of their journey, and there can be NO wrong answer and no first prize.




Religion often has very little to do with spirituality. One exists regardless of beliefs, the other exists because of beliefs. The universe always goes on regardless of how one feels about it. Such a reality that there is an expression of creation coming from a source that survives all emotional attachments and beliefs regarding ones place in and amongst the ongoing presence of expanding creation isn't always acknowledged or understood, but we all are experiencing it in the cycles of life and death. In that, there is no right and wrong but there are relative outcomes to the choices we make when we ignore something that is part of us. Especially if it is the greater/lasting part of us.


As I said, how we philosophize or worship is limited when engaged from personal beliefs rather than when we are intuitively connected to the timeless entity that exists within everything.

The science of Yoga exemplifies the ability to consciously join with it and to be aware of it. That science became a religion when Jesus died and left his disciples to carry on with his teachings. The teachings of Jesus were based on the relationship everyone has with the absolute and how to experience it. Not only experience it in ones self but in another.
We all experience the intuitive connection to the way others feel when we become close and less guarded with them such as we do with loved ones. A partner can walk through the door after having a bad day and you can feel it before anything is said.
When one feels a room full of people all experiencing the absolute its like stacking batteries together. The energy is amplified and the experience solidifies faith into an unbreakable connection with reality.
Something like that doesn't change. Only the experience of expansion with it changes.

Regardless of the personal flavor of each expression of God that is the soul in man, the resonance is always the same. When approached with innocence and without preconceived stress related judgments based on what a relationship with it should look like or be, the extent of the infinite is easily recognized as the only real thing that can be applied to humanity and its reflections of choice that is lasting.
Everything else comes and goes like days passing in the week.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/20/08 11:09 PM

Ellis, you say
Quote:
I am very much against the concept of win/win with regard to religion....


Your response prompts me to ask: Are you sure to know what I mean when I say, "win/win"?

Win/win, IMO, means as you write: "A person's religious experience is part of their journey, and there can be NO wrong answer and no first prize."

The negative of win/win is: I win and you lose. This is NOT the position which I choose to take. Win/win is about respecting all sincerely held opinions. If this is not clear, feel free to say so. Ask questions, if I am not clear, okay?
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/21/08 01:34 AM

It's just the win thing. There's no competition. I am sure most of us want to feel that we have achieved some degree of happiness and contentment in our life and are able to face the new day with some anticipation of pleasure. Is this winning? I don't think so because there really is no such thing as everyone winning. In order for me to win there has to be a loser, so that I can think well I've done better than that person. I'm cleverer, I'm prettier, I'm richer, I'm more loved by god because I am not sinful etc etc. Winning invites comparison, with others, whereas we should be concentrating on our own actions and behaviours. (I thnk). Life is not some great examination where the winner gets eternal life. There is no right way to live, there is no prize at the end... we need to find a way to live that ensures we are proud of what we have done and acknowledge that perhaps we could have done more--- before we fade to black!
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/21/08 01:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Win/win is about respecting all sincerely held opinions.

So far I haven't seen you with any ability to actually live up to that idea.
You respect sincerity only if you believe you are being respected.
Otherwise you ignore what you don't accept and respect, even use sarcasm. At least that is the way you have respected me.

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/21/08 01:42 PM

One hobby I have is writing rhymes. Yesterday--bright, warm and pleasant in Toronto--inspired by my reading of Eckhart Tolles, Power of the NOW, the following rhyme came to me while I was mowing the lawn. Believe it or not, I put these words to paper before I read any of today's posts. BTW, check out:

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=eckhart+tolle&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#
Spiritually speaking, ET and I are at-one-ment.
====================================================
The NOW, the HOW and the Presence--GOD as Love?
===============================================
NOW Will with me that Presence be
Love in the midst of pain and strife.
This guides us HOW to feel the NOW
In all that we call life.
NOW is the only time we have,
All else is but confusion.
Stay in the NOW, morn, noon and night;
And there'll be no illusion.
====================
To clarify what I mean:

NOW. I use it as an acronym representing our Nature/Nurture being under the Oneness of Will.

HOW. An acronym representing our being Honest, Open and Whole beings in Whole Being (GOD--the Goodness, Orderliness and Desireable Design in all that IS.)
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/21/08 05:48 PM

Do you know the difference between intellectualizing, and being the now?

And can you answer my other questions?

I'm OK if you can't, or if you don't understand the subject matter. But I think it would be an interesting scenario and opportunity for you to have you witness what is actually rising within you rather than what you think from the surface of the mind.
Its OK to be a follower of great ideas but all too often followers have no idea what it is that they are following as was evidenced by the masses who followed Jesus back in the day.

Eckhart Tolle has a great following but without the experience of what it is he speaks of, they can only create images within their minds and memory relative to the past impressions they have of reality.
This is not living in the now, it is thinking within a present moment that relies heavily on the past.
A condition of egoic referencing or judgment.

You do that a lot Rev., which is why I would like to see if you can actually bring the now forward into experience.
That would be a win win situation.

By the way, desirabilty in reference to God is a relative and sometimes religious idea that leans heavily on projection and often illusory perspectives.
It's all God and its all Good. Desirability in God would be whatever leads to bringing the awareness into the now, even if it is painful to the pride of ones idealism.
Wholeness is without pride and ego for they are limiting to the nature of the Soul. One cannot be whole with their ego as the lid on the quart jar of a personal God and any opinion regardless of how sincere it is, if it limits God in experience and expression of the now.

One way that experience is limited is when Oneness is idealized by the intellect under the influence of the ego, and at-one-ment is an agreement of personal idealism. Or when one sees or hears something and attaches everything desirous of the personal and it is anchored by belief rather than a connectedness to universal law.
Universal law unites all things regardless of personality and beliefs in idealism. It stands eternal whereas beliefs and personality are constantly changing and evolving based on conscious awareness of reality.
Evidence of such evolution is the attachment to symbolism. Ideas regarding the nature of reality are translated into idolistic markers that are heavily leaned upon until something better comes along, in which case the old idol is replaced with a new one and with new meanings.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/21/08 08:58 PM

Quote:
Do you know the difference between intellectualizing, and being the now?
Whenever I try to think about the difference my mind just goes blank and I forget. I wonder why this happens? smile

But seriously, I do not find it easy, yet, to distinguish between the roles played by soma, psyche and pneuma. With the help of others, including sincere experts, I plan to be able to do so sometime before I am called to make the next--that is, next to birth--"great transition" commonly called, death.

My mother--45 when I was born, did it when she was only 50. My father was 64. An older brother, who helped raise my younger sister and I, when he was 92. That was in 2004.

Life truly is an interesting phenomenon, eh?

Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/21/08 09:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Quote:
Do you know the difference between intellectualizing, and being the now?
Whenever I try to think about the difference my mind just goes blank and I forget. I wonder why this happens? smile


Lack of cognitive ability regarding Truth, or of the basic understanding and experience of the Now.
All of which is also called "Perfect Memory." (not bound to the relative ego)
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/21/08 10:15 PM

As I said,
Quote:
But seriously, I do not find it easy, yet, to distinguish between the roles played by soma, psyche and pneuma.

However, With the help of others, including sincere experts, I plan to be able to do so sometime before I am called on to make the next--that is, next to birth and "great transition" commonly called, death.

My mother--45 when I was born--did it when she was only 50. My father was 64. An older brother, the family hero who helped raise my younger sister and I--we are the last in the family of 8--did it when he was 92. What a guy he was! That was in 2004.

Life truly is an interesting phenomenon, eh?
.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/21/08 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
As I said,
Quote:
But seriously, I do not find it easy, yet, to distinguish between the roles played by soma, psyche and pneuma.

However, With the help of others, including sincere experts, I plan to be able to do so sometime before I am called on to make the next--that is, next to birth and "great transition" commonly called, death.

My mother--45 when I was born--did it when she was only 50. My father was 64. An older brother, the family hero who helped raise my younger sister and I--we are the last in the family of 8--did it when he was 92. What a guy he was! That was in 2004.

Life truly is an interesting phenomenon, eh?
.

As long as you don't sic the moderator on the help because you're feeling intimidated, help may come in unusual ways.
Also you may have to relax your grip in the definition of dialogue to allow for the destruction of ignorance rather than trying to soothe it.

Life is interesting if one is open to it rather than pushing it away from fear and misunderstanding.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 12:30 AM

I do try to answer your questions (if I can ) . So here I go with an opinion. I do not think that respecting others' sincerely held opinions is a 'win/win situation', I think it is a decent thing to do, and good manners. I am assuming the sincerely held belief is 'nice' and not a conviction that eating people's livers is a good idea (sorry there I go again with the sarcasm!)

TT said;
Universal law unites all things regardless of personality and beliefs in idealism. It stands eternal whereas beliefs and personality are constantly changing and evolving based on conscious awareness of reality.
Evidence of such evolution is the attachment to symbolism. Ideas regarding the nature of reality are translated into idolistic markers that are heavily leaned upon until something better comes along, in which case the old idol is replaced with a new one and with new meanings.

Well said. I would add that when we find that sense of universality we are able to expolore the possibilities of real truth which comes not just from our own ideas but from the connection to absolutely everything that is or ever was or will be. Now that sounds religious so I'll make it clear that I do not believe that the 'is now, ever was, or will be' is god. I just think it IS.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 01:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
I would add that when we find that sense of universality we are able to explore the possibilities of real truth which comes not just from our own ideas but from the connection to absolutely everything that is or ever was or will be. Now that sounds religious so I'll make it clear that I do not believe that the 'is now, ever was, or will be' is god. I just think it IS.

Have a thing about the word God do you?
Actually God IS, but then it is the relative connotations given to the isness that limits God and creates dogmatism in belief.
So God is still God. Its the idealism which tries to perfect it in a personal way that breaks the word God down into great or not so great isness....

If you fear to express yourself because you might give the wrong impression or because you think words have some kind of connotation that takes away from your intentions then you aren't so free to say what you mean or want.

Don't be afraid to put it out there. It is not your responsibility to control interpretation by those who cannot connect with you.
The problem with society is that it doesn't connect at a conscious level but tries to connect at the level of personal definitions and belief. It is the long way around the barn..
And those that try extra hard to be accomodating to all beliefs are the ones furthest removed from themselves and their connection to others. They give themselves away by their smoke and mirror diatribe, never investing themselves within their own creation, always trying to protect themselves.
This is what is in spiritual terms called Hell.

Not only do we lock the doors in our homes and build fences around our houses, but we lock the doors on our hearts and build fences around false beliefs because we have little faith in our own humanity.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 02:04 AM

TT SAID
The problem with society is that it doesn't connect at a conscious level but tries to connect at the level of personal definitions and belief. It is the long way around the barn..
And those that try extra hard to be accomodating to all beliefs are the ones furthest removed from themselves and their connection to others. They give themselves away by their smoke and mirror diatribe, never investing themselves within their own creation, always trying to protect themselves.
This is what is in spiritual terms called Hell.

TT As you know, my problem is that I personally lack any religious belief (in Hell too!) and I am conscious of the distress I can cause by stating that. I normally do not do so, and whilst this is cowardly I suppose, Australia is a tolerant place where we are all allowed our own flights of fancy without ever having to justify our beliefs. I have absolutely no idea what the beliefs of my members of Parliament are for example. It's a country of luke-warm fervour on most things, except sport, and that is not sarcastic, it's true! I like it that way.

I have no issue with the god concept for others who believe, but I myself do not believe it is the truth. I was (as you can imagine) much intrigued by the research into the god spot in the brain, where some people's brains lit up when contemplating god-like things and others--just didn't. I was pleased with that as it reassured me that I was merely reacting as one of the latter group. Incidentally there was, I believe an hereditory factor to the responses. Stands to reason really.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 02:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis


TT As you know, my problem is that I personally lack any religious belief (in Hell too!) and I am conscious of the distress I can cause by stating that.

I don't see that as a problem. But I do sense the problem you have regarding your belief in religious belief.
I would say any distress you create is a reflection of your own confusion over any validity or reason for religion and its trickling effect on personal social values and ideals.
Originally Posted By: Ellis



I have no issue with the god concept for others who believe, but I myself do not believe it is the truth.

Why should you if you have no experience of it?
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 03:17 AM

MY RELIGION--The bottom line, at this point--subject to change
==============================================================
By now, I hope that most readers know that when it comes to a my philosophy of religion I am a strong advocate of the freedom of and from religion--in all its forms--including the freedom to be an atheist, agnostic and/or secular humanist.

For me, one's religion is matter of deep personal choice. My religion, or lack of it, is my personal choice. I refuse to impose it on others and I will not allow others to impose their religion, or lack of it, on me.

Therefore, while I am happy to dialogue with anyone about the nature and function of what I believe, I refuse to debate, or argue, with the idea of proving that I am right and others are wrong. Systems, like theocracy, may be wrong. But, IMO, having a system is not the same as having a religion.

In my opinion justice, peace and good order are only possible when we all agree to live by the generally-accepted laws of the land, which are established with the participation and cooperation of all the members of the community--religious and non-religious. In the spirit of Adam Smith, the one who wrote The Wealth of Nations, I am a pluralist. I am also an advocate of the separation of church and state. [BTW, I would also like to see separation of the economy and the state. But that is another dialogue as to how this can be done.]

It ought to obvious then that, when I think of good government, theocracy--a government in which God, or a god, is recognized as the supreme civil ruler and divine or religious laws are taken as the laws of the state--is definitely not an option. By the way, most of the early empires, including the Roman Empire, were theocracies. So were the early nation states, including England.

My personal religion is definitely non dogmatic and I abhor taking a fixed-positioned approach to any teaching, including my own. It also frees me to be agnostic about that which I do not know enough, or do not fully understand, yet.

A good religion for me is one which helps me grow and develop, physically, mentally and spiritually and be of real service to my family and my fellow human beings, including those who do not happen to share my beliefs.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 04:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
MY RELIGION--The bottom line, at this point--subject to change
==============================================================
By now, I hope that most readers know that when it comes to a my philosophy of religion I am a strong advocate of the freedom of and from religion--in all its forms--including the freedom to be an atheist, agnostic and/or secular humanist.

For me, one's religion is matter of deep personal choice. My religion, or lack of it, is my personal choice. I refuse to impose it on others and I will not allow others to impose their religion, or lack of it, on me.

Therefore, while I am happy to dialogue with anyone about the nature and function of what I believe, I refuse to debate, or argue, with the idea of proving that I am right and others are wrong. Systems, like theocracy, may be wrong. But, IMO, having a system is not the same as having a religion.

In my opinion justice, peace and good order are only possible when we all agree to live by the generally-accepted laws of the land, which are established with the participation and cooperation of all the members of the community--religious and non-religious. In the spirit of Adam Smith, the one who wrote The Wealth of Nations, I am a pluralist. I am also an advocate of the separation of church and state. [BTW, I would also like to see separation of the economy and the state. But that is another dialogue as to how this can be done.]

It ought to obvious then that, when I think of good government, theocracy--a government in which God, or a god, is recognized as the supreme civil ruler and divine or religious laws are taken as the laws of the state--is definitely not an option. By the way, most of the early empires, including the Roman Empire, were theocracies. So were the early nation states, including England.

My personal religion is definitely non dogmatic and I abhor taking a fixed-positioned approach to any teaching, including my own. It also frees me to be agnostic about that which I do not know enough, or do not fully understand, yet.

A good religion for me is one which helps me grow and develop, physically, mentally and spiritually and be of real service to my family and my fellow human beings, including those who do not happen to share my beliefs.

I'm responding to this particular post before it might be edited due to some second thought or preconceived idea generated from this response, so the dialogue is not misconstrued or taken out of its original context.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
MY RELIGION--The bottom line, at this point--subject to change

You're beginning sentence is an oxymoron...
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
By now, I hope that most readers know that when it comes to a my philosophy of religion I am a strong advocate of the freedom of and from religion--in all its forms--including the freedom to be an atheist, agnostic and/or secular humanist.

That would be freedom of choice which is not necessarily a religion. At least not that I'm aware of.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
For me, one's religion is matter of deep personal choice. My religion, or lack of it, is my personal choice. I refuse to impose it on others and I will not allow others to impose their religion, or lack of it, on me.

I gotta say I find it a bit of a stretch trying to believe in an innocuous changing bottom line that could come from any real deep thought.
But I also think if you really believed in freedom of choice then I would find it hard to believe that you would entertain the idea that anyone could or would impose anything on another.
That would be an illusion, something that is not real even if someone thought it was.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Therefore, while I am happy to dialogue with anyone about the nature and function of what I believe, I refuse to debate, or argue, with the idea of proving that I am right and others are wrong.

I'm personally not aware of this proving one is right or proving one is wrong thing actually taking place here on this forum.
We are discussing the nature of reality, and the outcome of certain choices.
That would include the value of making statements regarding philosophy and belief from lack of experience and knowledge of the subject believed in or philosophized.
I would imagine that if words are spoken without knowledge one might feel they are wrong or that another who recognizes such action as trying to be right.

I like Odin1's signature: People will forgive you for anything -but being right ! This is especially true if one feels they are being persecuted by the reflection of their own inadequacies.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

In my opinion justice, peace and good order are only possible when we all agree to live by the generally-accepted laws of the land, which are established with the participation and cooperation of all the members of the community--religious and non-religious.

Not being Canadian does the law of your land advocate freedom of speech? It does in the law of our land, here in the United States as written in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
I find that law much misunderstood by most.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

It ought to obvious then that, when I think of good government, theocracy--a government in which God, or a god, is recognized as the supreme civil ruler and divine or religious laws are taken as the laws of the state--is definitely not an option.

God does not take from the son of Man Free will. However it is God's universe and since everything has some form of structure that holds it all together the universe may not bend toward the will of man made governments just because Man will not accept God as part of reality.
So in reality there could never be a theocracy of God because God does not rule and never has and never will. Jesus tried to tell the world that but everyone then was hoping....

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

My personal religion is definitely non dogmatic and I abhor taking a fixed-positioned approach to any teaching, including my own. It also frees me to be agnostic about that which I do not know enough, or do not fully understand, yet.

Hard to have a personal religion or to be dogmatic if you don't understand what religion you have. Also not having a personal point of view that is anchored in anything understandable or experienced, would leave one somewhat pensive about saying anything that might have something of any permanence attached to it.
You might want to give up any attachment to the fixed positions taken by those who actually have a deep understanding and experience of a teaching tho. I find that taking a position against a position when you don't know what you know is kind of futile, and only creates a huge amount of stress.


Originally Posted By: Revlgking

A good religion for me is one which helps me grow and develop, physically, mentally and spiritually and be of real service to my family and my fellow human beings, including those who do not happen to share my beliefs.

One would have to know all religions to have made a choice for a good one.
I'm sure Charles Manson felt what he believed in was a good choice and of real service to his family and fellow human beings and even those who didn't happen to share in his beliefs. I think I remember him saying something to that effect.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 04:29 AM

TT. I think you are perhaps right, I do find the reasons for belief baffling and I am totally unable to understand the fanatical beliefs that let people kill each other in the name of their god, who is the one true god. Surely truth was never meant to be that destructive.

So why believe in god? There's a good question for discussion.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 06:28 AM

Truth is in itself not destructive. People in their beliefs that are conjured from the limited imagination of ego which is driven from fear rather than love become destructive to themselves and their environment.
This destructive energy is drawn from Truth and twisted into darkness rather than light. We are allowed to make the choice to do so in order to discover the nature and potential of ourselves.
The surface appearances are easily misconstrued from belief in it being more real than the truth. When we turn back to the truth and align with it we become part and parcel to that which expands and fills everything with Truth. The nature of such absorption is called Nirvana or Bliss.
The nature of absorption into the relative limits of ego is called suffering and Hell.
These are terms which have no real meaning to one who has no awareness of these realities and no personal experience with them. But they inspire fantasy and belief.
We like to believe we can know or do know because we fear the darkness of not knowing.
Some are easily threatened by the awareness of how little they know. That pushes the ego into feeling attacked and by habit of what the ego identifies with in self preservation has a tendency to defend or fight back.
This is the hell Jesus spoke about some 2000 years ago.

The greatness of our fear or inability to condense the infinite universe into some sense of control causes us to create beliefs and habits to try and define reality so that we can prevent or circumvent bad experiences which we store in neural patterns of memory in the brain.
Being in what Tolle calls the now as the Reverend has become so interested in, or what others call the absolute or transcendental experience, or rising above duality and beyond ego brings us beyond fear.

Ultimately we all would like to find relief from the ideas that threaten our peace of mind and our senses. The belief that there is some thing, or some way to achieve this is easily adopted in favor of the everlasting condition of the threat to personal freedom and physical suffering that is the unknown.

Because the separation from isness in knowledge and experience is so prevalent we believe it is controlled by some higher authority because we cannot conceptualize the reality that it is by our own choices that we create the conditions to our personal experience of suffering.
We have experiences that do not bother us and others which do. We watch others have experiences of something we do not like and not be bothered and we experience what bothers someone else. This is our clue to the fact that we decide how we experience rather than an object controlling us.
This can lead us to the awareness of freedom from outside authority that is created from fear and habit, if we would really take a close look.
For those who would rather focus on instant gratification and to avoid the process of self exploration, it is easier to put salvation in the hands of some divine power that has the power to bathe us in our greater good and glory even when we are too lazy and stupid to see it and take it for ourselves.
For some it is a desperate measure to try and force happiness into their lives even if it is at the cost of others happiness.

We either live by trial and error or we live and learn through the guidance of those that have actually found the way.

Pride tho often circumvents the heart and its ability to ask for help for fear of looking and feeling inadequate.
The Ego NEVER asks for help. It will make up a belief before it does.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 07:28 PM

Ellis, you ask
Quote:
So why believe in god?
If you have told us before now, remind us: What comes to your mind when you think of the god-concept.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/22/08 11:10 PM

Rev: The answer is nothing.

TT. I suppose what I said did seem to indicate that I think truth is destructive. It can be sometimes but that is usually because of the deceit that the truth reveals-- But I think what I meant to indicate was that whilst the search for truth can be destructive it is a necessary journey to make in every aspect of our lives. Perhaps the most dangerous attribute is certainty, because it means the end of searching, and thus a hardening of our attitude to things that are different and that ties in with your view on ego (perhaps another word for the same thing). And I think truth is the ultimate achievement.

Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/23/08 12:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis


TT. I suppose what I said did seem to indicate that I think truth is destructive. It can be sometimes but that is usually because of the deceit that the truth reveals-- But I think what I meant to indicate was that whilst the search for truth can be destructive it is a necessary journey to make in every aspect of our lives. Perhaps the most dangerous attribute is certainty, because it means the end of searching, and thus a hardening of our attitude to things that are different and that ties in with your view on ego (perhaps another word for the same thing). And I think truth is the ultimate achievement.


It sounds like you're making an assumption that truth leads to finality, but I think you'd be surprised.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/23/08 04:58 AM

Quote:
Rev: The answer is nothing.
Oddly enough, I agree with you. IMO, GOD is no-thing. So does Eckhart Tolle. This why Orthodox Jews write 'G-d', to avoid thinking of god as a thing, an object, mental image, or an idol, in the mind (psyche). Non-theistic religions, like Buddhism, feel the same way.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/23/08 09:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Quote:
Rev: The answer is nothing.
Oddly enough, I agree with you. IMO, GOD is no-thing. So does Eckhart Tolle. This why Orthodox Jews write 'G-d', to avoid thinking of god as a thing, an object, mental image, or an idol, in the mind (psyche). Non-theistic religions, like Buddhism, feel the same way.
Your twisting her answer to make something (no-thing) out of nothing.

It might be a good time to explain what no-thing is and how it relates to your credo.
Quote:
I use the symbol, GØD, to refer to the entire physical COSMOS and beyond. GØD encompasses and interpenetrates all "things"--physical, mental and spiritual.
So that No-Thing can be something like the entire physical cosmos and how it can also interpenetrate all things physical as no-thing.
By the way Tolle borrowed the word "No-thing" from the teachings of Advaita Vedanta, which was like putting a retread on an old but good tire.

Also Buddhists do speak of God, actually in the same way Jesus and Buddha spoke of God. Neither of them really advocated the use of symbols to ward off bad or twisted thoughts.
What they did teach is the direct experience of God so that one might keep their focus on what was real rather than to create superstitious icons to prevent the evil thoughts from entering the mind.
The direct experience of No-thing was a reflection of something so impossible to contain that is does not come packaged in form but it does resonate with the awareness in the human nervous system which is sufficiently flexible to penetrate the veil between the physical and spiritual worlds.

So in fact no-thing is not a nothing, and the experience of nothing is not the experience of no-thing as Tolle speaks of it.
I wouldn't be doing any celebration dances yet Rev. There is still much to learn in the actual experience of No-Thing.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/23/08 06:15 PM

I suppose you good and honorable people know what you're talking about; but I ask you, when your life is done, and you look back on it all, among all your deeds and experiences, what value will you place upon all these words? That is a rhetorical question. It doesn't require an answer. It's food for thought, no more, no less.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/23/08 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
I suppose you good and honorable people know what you're talking about; but I ask you, when your life is done, and you look back on it all, among all your deeds and experiences, what value will you place upon all these words? That is a rhetorical question. It doesn't require an answer. It's food for thought, no more, no less.
If its food for thought and it has value, it is not rhetorical.

What value do you suppose Jesus placed on his words when engaging the people of the Earth knowing he was going to be crucified, and do you think he knew what he was talking about? I suppose I should ask also if you believe the man actually existed since some don't.

That by the way is not rhetorical.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/23/08 07:16 PM

Quote:
I wouldn't be doing any celebration dances yet Rev.
It is nice to hear how you feel about celebrating. TT, until you mentioned the subject, it never occurred to me to celebrate anything,

Whenever I now feel like celebrating, or denigrating anything, including persons, I now have the presence of spirit (pneuma) to check my ego and its servant, the mind (psyche). Invariably, I find that my ego--sneak that "she" smile is --is up to no good.

BTW, long before I was introduced to the writings of ET and others, by my daughter--last October--life taught me that celebrating and denigrating is a waste of the Now--in which things come and go and pass away. Only that which is truly valuable--faith, hope, love, joy, truth, peace and justice--remain constant.

For me, GOD is that which helps us live in the Now, the Presence. GOD includes all, even that which some call evil.

I, for one, now experience that NOW as the infinite and eternal moment where true creative love and its by products--faith, hope joy, peace of mind--not just the fleeting by products we call happiness and sadness--all dwell.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/23/08 11:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking


Whenever I now feel like celebrating, or denigrating anything, including persons, I now have the presence of spirit (pneuma) to check my ego and its servant, the mind (psyche). Invariably, I find that my ego--sneak that "she" smile is --is up to no good.

I hope that includes any false ideas you might have had in leading yourself and or anyone else into believing the idea or experience of nothing was the same as No-thing or God.
Also it might free you from the idea of fostering truth in and amongst illusion and ignorance, as being denigrating toward anyone that is deluded. That would be an ego thing as well if one is not immersed in the now or at-one-ment with God or universal mind.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

For me, GOD is that which helps us live in the Now, the Presence. GOD includes all, even that which some call evil.

Actually the presence of evil is not a god created thing, it is an ego created thing of which ego being created by God is allowed to swill in its own concoction of illusion, as well as stand in Truth and clarity. That would be the image of God, to make choice through free will to manifest whatever one desires regardless of how expansive or contracting to the human nervous system.
In reality everything is just energy. Quality of energy is pasted on top, like celebrating or denigrating. Its all in the way you see things. Either you see through the eye as single or you see with the two eyes of duality.
God doesn't really help anyone in the way you might think. God is ever-present and when one turns toward God rather than ego one is automatically charged/helped with divine energy. It is when one turns toward the illusions of ego that one ignores Gods Love/Help. Words are so easy to get lost in dontcha think. Trying to stay ahead of the game by learning definitions and playing games with definitions is what is known as an enlightened Ego.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

I, for one, now experience that NOW as the infinite and eternal moment where true creative love and its by products--faith, hope joy, peace of mind--not just the fleeting by products we call happiness and sadness--all dwell.

That's amazing. You went from nothing to no-thing as soon as you got your definitions straight!
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/24/08 05:52 PM

Now I would like to ask Ellis, or anyone: When so-called Bible-believing Christians, whatever, try to convert you, to save your soul, talk to you, or write to you about God, what image of God do you think they are trying to get across to you?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/24/08 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Now I would like to ask Ellis, or anyone: When so-called Bible-believing Christians, whatever, try to convert you, to save your soul, talk to you, or write to you about God, what image of God do you think they are trying to get across to you?

I'll answer as an anyone:
It would vary from person to person.
The ego imagines based on collected information relative to the personal belief and the catalogue of memory and association.

You are a good example Rev.
As long as I have known you, you have changed your description about as often as you post to keep the conversation going as long as you can.

So would one who will want to save the soul of another but maybe for their own personal reasons that are not the exact same as yours. No two personalities will think and experience exactly alike all of the time.

Really what we are speaking of is a personality which believes in an obligation to ones self and humanity.
Obviously if one believes in some God in heaven as a personality it wouldn't really be that God that has demanded them to live in fear and try and save the world of lost humans if that type of God isn't real.
It would be man himself who has imagined such an idea because of what he believes, what he has been told, and what he has read based on what others believe and have read and have been told ad infinitum...

Unless one has the direct experience of God, humans imagine and engage others in conversation to try and find enough people who might imagine the same thing so they won't be afraid their imagination is false.
Unfortunately God is not democratic and no matter how many believe in the same thing majority does not make something real. It only feeds the ego and a level of comfort.

So conversations that dwell in the imagination only prolong the illusion and distract the mind from the real.
Beliefs that aren't anchored in anything substantial and are constantly changing are beliefs that are derived from imagination. Spirituality lived from imagination has no ability to move another or will it resonate with all of humanity.
It might find commonality in a like minded thought which is why there are so many groups that congregate with their own ideas about religion and God.

I was living in North Carolina for a while and wondered about the Baptist Churches that were spaced about every two blocks within the small town I was visiting.
As it turned out when someone decided they didn't like what was going on within the church, they started another one down the block until the town had one for every ideal and every imagination.
Everyone was happy as long as they were within the walls of their own church, but as soon as they stepped outside they were under the threat of their own imaginative fears of personality that their religion and church might be missing something. Maybe just maybe one of those other churches might have something going on that theirs didn't, and those guys might know something they didn't, and maybe God might find more favor in the beliefs and practices of one of those other churches.

So we are talking about superstition and ego, it is what seeks to find commonality in conversation and belief so that it might not fear being alone.


Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/25/08 01:27 AM

Quote:
You are a good example Rev.
As long as I have known you, you have changed your description about as often as you post to keep the conversation going as long as you can.
I have changed my description?

Of what? From what? And to what?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/25/08 02:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Quote:
You are a good example Rev.
As long as I have known you, you have changed your description about as often as you post to keep the conversation going as long as you can.
I have changed my description?

Of what? From what? And to what?

Of yourself.
From Minister, to writer, to Artist, to pneumatologist, empath,
intuitive economist, and most recently equal in knowledge and experience with Eckhart Tolle since you read his book.

I'll quote you"
Quote:

I love going into the root meanings of words. For new ideas, I also love to coin new words.
when it comes to a my philosophy of religion I am a strong advocate of the freedom of and from religion--in all its forms--including the freedom to be an atheist, agnostic and/or secular humanist.
MY RELIGION--The bottom line, at this point--subject to change.
I'm easy.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/25/08 05:51 AM

There are as many versions of 'god' as there are people, as each person who believes wants to create god in their own image! The established churches recognise this and a lot of doctrine, discussion and dogma is spent on ensuring the the god recognised by their group is distinct (and more powerfully holy) than their neighbours down the road.

I am of course talking about gods in a very universal way, and not confining myself to the christian variety. We humans will, with little encouragement, worship virtually anything. With encouragement we will kill to preserve that which we feel is holy. Often, we assure ourselves, with the blessing of our god.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/25/08 07:43 AM

There is a saying. "The universe does not support vacillation."
Beliefs that are not founded on anything real fade into memory and oblivion. Change seems to be a constant in the relative world but changes stands as testimony to that which cannot remain, no matter how strongly one believes, if it isn't real.
Whatever is a constant, stands free of mans bottom line in lack of commitment, and or any commitment to illusion.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/25/08 08:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I have changed my description?
Of what? From what? And to what?
Of yourself.
From Minister, to writer, to Artist, to pneumatologist, empath,
intuitive economist, and most recently equal in knowledge and experience with Eckhart Tolle since you read his book.
I'll quote you
Quote:
...when it comes to a my philosophy of religion I am a strong advocate of the freedom of and from religion--in all its forms--including the freedom to be an atheist, agnostic and/or secular humanist.
MY RELIGION--The bottom line, at this point--subject to change.
I'm easy.



Hiya TT,
Shallohm wink
.
.
...and at the risk of....

I think Revl. was speaking objectively; that is....

...of his philosophy of 'religion for others' as being accommodating of different expressions of 'religion.'
...or words to that effect.
&
His phrase "MY RELIGION" is only juxtaposed to the "subject to change" comment; and I see it as more of a rhetorical device, as a way to say he's open to understanding things in terms of other religions (or non-religions).
...or perhaps that his idea of what 'religion is' is to be accepting of the varying views of others.
No, that's too strong; ...but maybe that (part of) his religion is to "change" or adapt to accommodate other's religion.

...or maybe I'm projecting too much.
===

...meanwhile.
I should probably find a particular quote, but....
You've talked about the difference between knowing and experiencing God. But what of religions? Are they all ways (for the right person at the right time) of "knowing," but still not necessarily of experiencing (that coming more from within, irrespective of religion?)?

Thanks,
~ smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/25/08 07:12 PM

Originally Posted By: samwik

Hiya TT,
Shallohm wink
.
.
...and at the risk of....

I think Revl. was speaking objectively; that is....

...of his philosophy of 'religion for others' as being accommodating of different expressions of 'religion.'
...or words to that effect.
&
His phrase "MY RELIGION" is only juxtaposed to the "subject to change" comment; and I see it as more of a rhetorical device, as a way to say he's open to understanding things in terms of other religions (or non-religions).
...or perhaps that his idea of what 'religion is' is to be accepting of the varying views of others.
No, that's too strong; ...but maybe that (part of) his religion is to "change" or adapt to accommodate other's religion.

...or maybe I'm projecting too much.
===
~ smile


No there is nothing that has been said that you can nail to one specific idea. The Rev. is attempting to cement the Good he knows exists into definition, purpose and a clear path to follow. He is a good person with a great heart but his intellect and his emotional body are at odds because what he feels conflicts with what he wants to believe.
Merely having good intentions is too nebulous and often deluded by the ego to produce results that are congruent to the expansion of good in all.
If you take the good intentions of Hitler and Mother Meara and put them together they don't add up to the same thing.
Not all people are on the same path. Knowing this comes with knowing ones self.
The Rev. applies lots of labels and accomplishments to himself to better understand how he can apply those labels to others and to do so without creating any tension.
Being that he has suffered in his own mind the trials and tribulations of growing up in an economic hostile environment he seeks the ideals of both physical and spiritual worlds and would still like to control the process in such a way as to leave free will complete. Its a paradox to know God does exist but not to understand why so much appears so separate from it.
The clarity of Knowing God comes when all illusions are dropped, rather than to find God and good within the illusions.
His focus is still heavily absorbed in illusion. Traversing the path of accumulating everything from the outside and taking it in rather than coming from the inside or from spirit moving outward. The illusions are very painful to him, and he seeks not only to cure the pain in himself but by doing so in others to accomplish it.

Obviously this is the way I experience him, and it is possible others as well. This medium is not capable of establishing whether this is the truth only how people feel about what another sees and experiences. Truth has to be established within, or beyond relative values and it can be recognized by one who stands in the same place.
Obviously the world does not reflect such an ideal or we wouldn't be trying to kill each other nor would we be clinging so tightly to our bodies and our material possessions, arranging them continuously in hopes of finding favor with God.

But on a lighter note. There are those individuals who have traversed the path of illusion and can clearly recognize the difference between illusion and truth.
Originally Posted By: samwik
...meanwhile.
I should probably find a particular quote, but....
You've talked about the difference between knowing and experiencing God. But what of religions? Are they all ways (for the right person at the right time) of "knowing," but still not necessarily of experiencing (that coming more from within, irrespective of religion?)?

Thanks,
~ smile

Plato

Book VII of The Republic

The Allegory of the Cave

Here's a little story from Plato's most famous book, The Republic. Socrates is talking to a young follower of his named Glaucon, and is telling him this fable to illustrate what it's like to be a philosopher -- a lover of wisdom: Most people, including ourselves, live in a world of relative ignorance. We are even comfortable with that ignorance, because it is all we know. When we first start facing truth, the process may be frightening, and many people run back to their old lives. But if you continue to seek truth, you will eventually be able to handle it better. In fact, you want more! It's true that many people around you now may think you are weird or even a danger to society, but you don't care. Once you've tasted the truth, you won't ever want to go back to being ignorant!

[Socrates is speaking with Glaucon]

[Socrates:] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

[Glaucon:] I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.

Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.

He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said.

This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

As a comment to your question Sawmik.
Not all knowing comes from truth but from the shadows perceived through the layers of belief that are the ego.
Religion which comes from stories that are passed on from one to another when they are not of personal mastery by the story teller, become like a game of Chinese whispers.
Someone says something to one and it is passed in whisper to another, after it is passed on several times it is not the same story any more.
Many of today's religions are similar in their content. We can see by their examples how the many religions have used their beliefs to try and control the masses even by using what they justify as Holy war, to kill off those who would infect the purity of Gods word. The use of such ignorance has been the underlying current of every war, the abuse of personal belief and the twisting of Truth to manipulate power and subjugate those who are not of a majority in their beliefs, or to destroy them if they become a threat.
In the world of spiritual evolution everything serves one on their path to awakening. The realization of this does not come until one steps out of the cave of ignorance and immerses themselves in the light of Truth that is a constant within all things. Then can one understand where they have been after having been freed from the illusions of shadows. Then can one speak of illusion and truth as a master of experience.
Once one learns that the body and the beliefs are temporary, like steps of educational grades in school, right and wrong becomes more clear in understanding that right choices lead toward the light and wrong lead the other way. Because one does not slight another for their choice, which is God given, it is still possible to state the truth which is still the truth.

If someone wants to run full speed at a brick wall and someone says you will be stopped by the wall and the runner says I believe I won't, does the runners choice and knowledge come from truth or from illusion?
The inherent reality of the soul is that it is not made of molecules but it can manipulate molecules to make the body and as such could conceivably pass through walls which are also constructed of the same process as the body is constructed.
In the souls current state of mind which is anchored in knowledge of the shadows, to run at the wall carrying those beliefs will necessarily impede ones passage through solid objects.
If he knows absolutely there are no shadows then there is nothing that will prevent him. If there is the slightest bit of baggage or doubt the wall will stop him.
This is the reality of psychological barriers that are the beliefs of ego. We are only limited by those beliefs which limit us. Above and beyond the beliefs in the physical world exists an entirely different set of natural laws. Those which support our spiritual body and the experience of that. To that body no material rule has any effect.
There is a story in the Bible that illustrates this, a story of the "eye of the needle" which is based on a real place in time and space. The eye of the needle was a passageway in a rock wall between two villages in the Eastern world. One literally had to remove everything from the back of their camel and get the camel down on its knees to pass through.
The story relates to the soul and any beliefs the ego has that would allow them to pass through the very narrow opening that is only big enough for the soul to pass into the experience of itself or complete knowledge of everlasting spirit.
Religion has its purpose but its purpose is often linked to the clothing one wears to fit an occasion of ideals and belief.
If its sunny and you gear up for rain you are over dressed. If its raining and cold and you wear your swim suit you are under dressed.
The masters when they spoke of truth, it was not as a Religion or belief but as the underlying reality of the relative beliefs and the world that was contained within those beliefs.
It was those who listened and did not understand that pledged themselves to believe in the man and not the substance of his experience that led them to cling to his stories.
They would emulate the way he dressed, the way he spoke, the way he ate and slept, and that became the religion that followed in the footsteps of his knowledge.

A friend of mine once said in order to propel an arrow forward you must draw it backward to create the energy/experience needed to propel it forward.
In this way religion, no matter how far from the truth serves the evolving soul to propel it toward the truth.
The relative world is the world of opposites and it always will be and always has been. Man continues to evolve from it into spiritual awareness and in any age of scientific and intellectual development this is possible, for the development of the soul is not dependent on outside circumstance but intuitive development, free will and experience of Truth.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/25/08 08:29 PM

Wow TT,
What a wonder filled reply!
...and I haven't even read it all the way through properly.

I want to apologize for trying to speak for Revl. as I did (fairly poorly also, I think). Maybe what I was trying to say came across, but I don't know....
Well, just never mind....

I'll look over your answers some more, and maybe then I'll know what to say.

Thanks for the time on all that reply though. I have much to look forward to, I'm sure.

~ smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/26/08 04:11 AM

You're welcome. I noticed I spelled your name Sawmik... confused
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/26/08 05:31 AM

Sam and TT: Unless the one who taught me philosophy deluded me, I recall that he told us students that the writings of Plato are not called debates, but dialogues, a method of which he expressed his fondness. He also pointed out that Socrates--who has been called "a Christian before Christ"--did not arrogantly claim to be the fount of all wisdom.

Sam and TT: Realizing the added value that face to face communication would be, I always appreciate all written comments offered with a positive attitude and in the spirit of dialogue.

BTW, anytime any of my written comments appear to have a negative in attitude, please feel free to let me know. If anyone feels offended by anything I write, I have no problem apologizing. I hope I am mature enough to have a difference of opinion while doing so with respect.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/26/08 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Sam and TT: Unless the one who taught me philosophy deluded me, I recall that he told us students that the writings of Plato are not called debates, but dialogues, a method of which he expressed his fondness. He also pointed out that Socrates--who has been called "a Christian before Christ"--did not arrogantly claim to be the fount of all wisdom.

I'm not aware of any debate or of anyone making such claims.
Where are you going with this?
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Sam and TT: Realizing the added value that face to face communication would be, I always appreciate all written comments offered with a positive attitude and in the spirit of dialogue.

Noble intentions are always accepted but not always are they given in understanding of ones reality. Nobility driven by lack of experience in reality actually is not nobility but illusion. Comprehensive objectivity is an even greater asset. By getting to know what is being said and the person who is saying it, one need not stand behind a rule and a wall of ideals always prepared for the attack or trying to prevent one.

A great teacher of mine always told me, "Everything that comes to you is a gift for your growth."
Never turn anything away in judgment, and don't assume everything is what you think it is.
Dialogue is much more than hollow pleasantries. Those things that come up and are painful to the ego are gifts to expand one beyond their limitations. Rather than turn them away or ignore them one should learn to look beyond the feelings of attack and the little self worth one has to believe they could be threatened by the words of another in their nature to express themselves.
There are no victims. We make the world what it is.
When it is attacking us we know not the absolute at-one-ment with our creation.
You could really know the now Rev. It will bring you much further than you are willing to let yourself go, which seems so full of the need to protect your identity as you wish to idealize it.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

BTW, anytime any of my written comments appear to have a negative in attitude, please feel free to let me know.

OK. You have a negative attitude toward what I have said to you and about you.

Just letting you know.

No need to apologize, just move beyond it and open yourself to a greater possibility then you have in the past.

Or Not. I'm OK either way. I'm not one to let feelings get in the way of a constructive conversation.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/26/08 07:20 AM

Rev wrote:
Socrates--who has been called "a Christian before Christ"-

Hmph! What on earth does that mean?


TT I think that knowledge and truth are indivisible. There's lots more in that reply of yours and like Samwik I need time to work through it! I enjoyed reading the allegory and discussion posed by Socrates the proto-christian. Whatever our journey should we not aim for true knowledge? Or put another way - enlightenment as suggested by Socrates?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/26/08 07:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis



TT I think that knowledge and truth are indivisible. There's lots more in that reply of yours and like Samwik I need time to work through it! I enjoyed reading the allegory and discussion posed by Socrates the proto-christian. Whatever our journey should we not aim for true knowledge? Or put another way - enlightenment as suggested by Socrates?

That is what all religions are derived from. The goal to achieve enlightenment. To be able discern the difference between the shadows of illusion that is false knowledge and the Truth which is the light within all things.
Knowledge without experience is then just a thought. Knowledge with experience gives one the presence of being the Truth.

The "I and My Father are One." Kind of experience of Truth.
No shadows between the eye and the reflection of ones Self.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/26/08 06:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
Rev wrote:
Socrates--who has been called "a Christian before Christ"-

Hmph! What on earth does that mean?


To be "Christed" in terms of definition was also said to be "Anointed with the Staff of Knowledge." The Staff of knowledge being the absolute/God.
Jesus when acknowledged as being the "Son of God" was known as being Christed or The Christ. In harmony with universal mind, absolute truth, or enlightened.
Socrates was enlightened by every indication of his intelligence and knowledge, maybe not as evolved as Jesus was but still much more than the common man who is still living within the identification of the world of shadows.
He was Imbued with a direct connection to"The Fount of All Wisdom" to use the Reverends label. A "Son of God" which is "enlightenment" and what Christianity is based on, a state of mind and body immersed in the experience of the now/absolute/God. Christianity didn't become a religion until rules of dialogue were applied to it and then rules and ideals of action or lifestyle applied to mimicking what the ego thought it saw, in and of Jesus while he lived and spoke of his enlightenment.

Psychology of reality when it comes from the ego is belief in shadows and the science derived from illusion.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/27/08 12:59 AM

But TT- what if enlightenment does not lead to the absolute/god but instead to the knowledge that there is no absolute/god, just a series, or even just one ,happy confluence of random chance/s and we, and our universe, are witnesses, or perhaps the products of that event. The destination of truth is often more surprising than we may have anticipated.

Plus-I think it's a cop-out for believers in one religion to endow the wise men of another with near beatitude within their own beliefs, galling though it may be to find that non-believers have previously and since come up with good ideas and arguments.!
(NB Rev. Arguments are parts of discussions and dialogue.)
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/27/08 04:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
But TT- what if enlightenment does not lead to the absolute/god but instead to the knowledge that there is no absolute/god, just a series, or even just one ,happy confluence of random chance/s and we, and our universe, are witnesses, or perhaps the products of that event. The destination of truth is often more surprising than we may have anticipated.


The "what if" comes from standing outside and trying to look in.
No one who has experienced it stands separate from another, nor experiences the universe as being random.
The universe is a reflection of consciousness and we project the nature of the universe individually and it seems as if we also do it en masse. But there is only One.
That is the reality of enlightenment. It is not subject to democracy it is the nature of consciousness.

We accept the laws of democracy but we often ignore the laws of nature, or project upon nature to try and fit it into the personal agenda. But eventually we will surrender to something greater than the personal agenda and the idea of being victim to a haphazard and random universe.

There is too much order within the universe to seriously follow the thought that such order is random.
The order is easily understood and experienced as the absolute.
It has been part and parcel to the nature of man since man first was.


Originally Posted By: Ellis

Plus-I think it's a cop-out for believers in one religion to endow the wise men of another with near beatitude within their own beliefs, galling though it may be to find that non-believers have previously and since come up with good ideas and arguments.!

Belief does not make something so. It doesn't matter what anyone says. First hand experience is the only thing that substantiates reality.
For those who believe this world is all there is. The reality of birth and death and the experience of just that. IT is real.

For those who experience more than that. Then that becomes real.

Within every age of man there have been guides born to lead humanity from the reality of shadows toward the reality of the light. Such men stand out as leaders of spirituality and they lead by living example.

They are not the Jim Bakers, the David Koresh's or the Jim Jone's. But people like Buddha and Jesus, who expand the way of life for humanity and have such an effect as to change the direction of living and belief for all mankind.
Regardless of belief everyone knows of Jesus whether they understand him, believe in him or not. The name resonates in the thoughts of reality as an example of truth and justice even if one believes it is a pipe dream. It was not the man who created the diverse dogma and skewed ideas of his teaching. It was the beliefs created around the followers and their ego.

The texts that were written before the appearance of these people and also prophesied these same people, speak of the nature of enlightenment and of how it would be exemplified by such people as were predicted by the prophets.

What irritates most about spirituality is the threat that exists within to the ego.
The nature of the ego is to suppress truth and spirituality for if it manifests, it means death to the way of life that is to be the victim to randomness, and to fear as a way of life.

It doesn't matter whether one believes in something that is true or not. If it is real it is true for all regardless of relative ideals and beliefs. That absolute reality has become a part of human discovery and has been experienced and shared in the personal teachings passed down from generation to generation from one enlightened soul to another.
Mainstream humanity simply does not take the time to seek these people or this truth out until they become bored with their need for instant gratification and their protective walls that they have built around them to actually ask or demand a better way of life for themselves and all of humanity.
They may stumble around in the dark out of habit trying to rearrange the same old habits for a short time, but eventually they come around and open themselves to the possibility by actually putting down everything they think is real.
Only then does the reality that seemed so transparent and unbelievable become so obvious and eternal.

The fact that it has been spoken of and taught throughout the written and spoken history of mankind and has lasted through the changing systems of belief and religion that have born and died through the ages is a kind of testimony to its everlasting nature.

It doesn't matter whether anyone believes in it or not, or who is glorified. It still remains the same.
The enlightened always speak of the glory within all men. It is only the ego that glorifies one man over another. But the glory that is spoken of is not relative to the accomplishments of man and any measure of material consequence, it is to the glory of spirit that can be brought forward into the material world, and that can only be determined by one who has themselves become enlightened.

Otherwise anyone can become a god. All you need is a television and a tribe of people who have never seen one and your a god.
Superstition is not a clear determination of Gods and reality.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/27/08 04:41 AM

For those with the patience there is a lot on the Web about Socrates and the idea of Christ.
http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1701336.html
http://www.lotsofessays.com/essay_search/Socrates_Christ.html
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/27/08 06:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
For those with the patience there is a lot on the Web about Socrates and the idea of Christ.
http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1701336.html
http://www.lotsofessays.com/essay_search/Socrates_Christ.html
From the first link:
The study of philosophy can lead to the confirmation of Christian beliefs. Although some Christians consider philosophy to be of Satanic origin, in reality it emanates from the search by humans for meaning and order in life. Unlike science or mathematics, philosophy has no laws. Instead, philosophy is characterized by argument, alternative reasoning, and debate........


The confirmation of a belief...
Would that be like the confirmation of a thought? To establish that Christians believe in something?
I actually don't have any issue with that Idea. I think it is widely accepted that Christians have a belief.

As for the other link and its content.
I have to reiterate, that anything philosophized while being asleep is still going to be subject to greater awareness and intellect upon awakening, as is also illustrated in the excerpt from Plato's Dialogues:
In all three of these dialogues, Socrates illustrates that the nature of true knowledge often remains elusive, that it can only be truly known once the soul is freed from the body, and that the pursuit of it (i.e. the good) through philosophy while alive is the only thing that approximates happiness or wisdom.
Obviously an approximation of something not experienced, is at best going to be limited by the ego and how deeply hypnotized it is in belief based on false interpretations of reality.

Again from the first link:
These issues are of importance to all Christians. Geisler and Feinberg contend that Christians have a responsibility to study philosophy because "philosophical thought can significantly contribute to theological understanding"
I would comment on this statement in saying that by going so far in the wrong direction one would be able to tell the difference when they are going in the right direction.
However being tantamount to experience I would say most Christians who discover the good/Truth will necessarily drop the futility of philosophical thought originally engaged in the state of mind and body that was immersed in the shadow world of illusion and as Jesus the Master or Teacher did, "speak from direct experience" of "the Good" rather than philosophize their way around it.
That is what leads others to direct experience when they are ready to engage themselves in direct experience. It is also what enlivens and strengthens it within the material or relative world.
I think it was said in scripture that the measure of a man is made by what he accomplishes, not in material status and title, but in his ability to bring the spirit of the absolute forward into the relative world of the body, or to quicken the flesh.

Unfortunately the links only seem give snippets of the content of the essay unless you decide to buy into their membership, which I wasn't interested in exploring. As a consequence I only comment on what I skimmed from what was available.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/27/08 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
"But TT- what if enlightenment does not lead to the absolute/god..."
Ellis, I presume by now you know that I do not teach, or preach doctrines, or dogma--revealed or otherwise--which I want to impose on myself, or others.

I say this because I agree with Socrates: We really know so very little about anything. If we--I say "we" because I am agnostic about so many things, including religion--could get all agnostics to be truly sincere, humble, loving and curious enough to come together and form THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE HOLY AGNOSTICS--Atheists welcome, it would be the largest religion in the history of humane-ity.

Of course I say, and write, what I sincerely believe to be true; but, at this point there are only a few things--physical, mental and spiritual "things"--which I hold to be, self evidently, The Truth. One of them is that I am in the mystery of NOW, now--not a minute ago; not a minute from now, but now.

USING THE SOCRATIC METHOD, DIALOGUE, LETS YOU AND I DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS FOR A FEW POSTS.
=======================================================
First, when we use important words and ideas we need to be clear that we understand one another. If we cannot be clear about what we mean, it is pointless to go any further until we do understand one another. Therefore, let us be willing to dialogue until we do. If we cannot do this, let us agree to halt the dialogue and continue to offer mutual respect.

Then, second, without the intention of failing, losing out--or copping out--we will be ready to see if we can find some kind of common ground and understanding about what we mean when we say: This is what I believe to be true. Surely death, debt and taxes are not the only certainties! smile
As you said:
(NB Rev. Arguments are parts of discussions and dialogue.)
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/27/08 03:31 PM

ELLIS, OF THIS I AM CERTAIN NOW
At this point there are only a few things--physical, mental and spiritual "things"--which I hold to be, self evidently, The Truth. One of them is as follows:

1. I am at one, now, within the space/time cosmos and so are all other physical, mental and spiritual beings, known and unknown, with me at the same time.

Ellis, your comments and/or questions, please.

Any time I find the above is not true I am free to change my belief.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/27/08 06:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
OF THIS I AM CERTAIN NOW
At this point there are only a few things--physical, mental and spiritual "things"--which I hold to be, self evidently, The Truth. One of them is as follows:

1. I am at one, now, within the space/time cosmos and so are all other physical, mental and spiritual beings, known and unknown, with me at the same time.

The Truth. One of them is that I am in the mystery of NOW, now--not a minute ago; not a minute from now, but now.


The now you are referring to carries much baggage.
It carries all of your beliefs, your desires, and your past impressions of the subject and all of the responses.
This is not the now that Tolle speaks of it is the now the ego understands. It is the best that one can do when not knowing the absolute now which Tolle speaks.
The nervous system carries with it all of the memories and all of its impressions of reality in any given moment and does not forget them, even if the mind does not draw them into conscious activity of thought.

There are times when two people get together and one starts drifting into thoughts while the other person is speaking and the other person might say, "where are you?" If the person says I'm right here then the response might be that your body is but your mind isn't.
Focus then tends to derive its identification and definition from having the mind here and now, but we all know that the mind carries with it the beliefs and the past impressions of life.
When we are in deep contemplation we draw from the past, we project into the future, we set parameters for the limits of thought and idea automatically based on our experiences so that if thoughts wander outside of the box we draw them in.
The older we get the less innocence we have when being present because we carry so many ideas and beliefs about our world and our experiences we have a difficult time accepting new ideas and tasks that are foreign to our habitual way of life.

A simple example is learning a new language.
Adults have a difficult time learning a new language because of their belief in the difficulty. Habit has by the collection of experience determined that some things are difficult and others not. We have found through the process of trial and error and in the way we have been told that life is difficult in some respects and that some things are always a certain way.
Typically the average adult strains to learn new languages from being habitually attached to one they have found commonality with.

(This also applies to spirituality by the way in knowing the presence of now)

The typical child however does not have these programs of difficulty or habit running in their nervous system. They have not been programed to believe life is a certain way. For a child it is easy to absorb complex languages and in a multilingual environment a child learns easily to speak many languages at the same time.
This is innocence of being in the now. It also is a reflection of the scripture describing the innocence of children and how an adult must be in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as was spoken of by Jesus.

Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom."

They said to him, "Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Jesus said, "Do not fret, from morning to evening and from evening to morning, [about your food--what you're going to eat, or about your clothing--] what you are going to wear. [You're much better than the lilies, which neither card nor spin.

As for you, when you have no garment, what will you put on? Who might add to your stature? That very one will give you your garment.]"

His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."


When you strip the habit and the past from the mind and body, the central nervous system by immersing it into the absolute now, then the mind is fed and the body is clothed with the wisdom of what he termed as that very one, which he also called the Father, Universal mind and wisdom, the mind of omniscience and not the ideals and limiting beliefs of the ego.

When Socrates spoke of the limited knowing of reality he spoke to the heart underlying the ego to not be so quick to make any assumptions based on the philosophies derived from shadows. To take the mind into the stillness of God rather than the surface waves of the ocean of thought and memory, to know God.
He also spoke in such a way as to indicate that regardless of what he said one would not know of Truth even if he spoke of it because their minds would have to be set aside from doing the listening so that the heart could engage the Truth.

This was symbolized by the words of Jesus also when he said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."
The clothes he spoke of are the ideas, beliefs and philosophies derived from the ignorance of the ego.

So Dear Reverend, You have more to learn and experience to understand the full meaning of the Now.
Simply saying you are in the now does not resonate with the innocence of a child that has no prejudice, no preconceived ideas and no understanding of being persecuted within the structure of your own beliefs of safety, spirituality and freedom of expression which are laced by your rules and expectations of dialogue in its form.

You expect too much and also feel too much of your past in the present moment, to be in the Now.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/27/08 10:07 PM

BTW, TT, I love your signature. It goes well with your lecture.

I am reminded of a story of King James II of England; of when he first viewed the newly completed, St. Paul's cathedral. At the close of his visit it is reported that he said to Sir Christopher Wren, the architect, who was admired as a genius: "I find it awful, artificial and amusing!"

Wren's ego was well pleased.

The riddle is: How come he was pleased?

And the answer to the riddle is what? ...........

Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/28/08 12:43 AM

The riddle's answer... If you change the spelling slightly to that which may be closer to the contemporary meaning "aweful" as in full of awe-- it is actually a rather clever opinion.

And I think it would have been James 11.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/28/08 02:51 AM

Yes, thanks Ellis, I made the correction. And, in those days, 'artificial' meant the work of true artisans; and 'amusing' meant the work of the muses.

I have used this riddle in sermons to point out why we need new translations to reflect modern usage. Another example is 'fear' as applied to God. Fear meant to express respect and awe, not to cringe in fear.

In addition to this, we need new theological words and phrases to express new ways of looking at things, especially in this time of quantum physics, the new physics, including string theory and multi-dimensional universes.

The nouns god, gods and the proper noun 'God' no longer serve those of us who have outgrown the limitations imposed on us by theism, especially of the folk kind, of the past. They have served their day. BTW, not just unitheists (panentheists) speak as I do. Even well-read monotheists will not tell you that God is masculine and mono being who lives somewhere out there in heaven--one who listens with ears and sees with eyes.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/28/08 04:16 AM

IN DIALOGUE WITH ELLIS
=====================
Ellis, IMO, GOD is not a one to whom we need to be led--as mentioned by you; not a someone who hides, gets lost and needs to be found; not a one who wills, creates, gets angry, blesses or judges, whatever. As Tolle agrees, GOD, "is just Being, not a Being."

Now one can resent thinking of GOD as Being. Or--and I would say at great cost and sense of well being--one can even refuse to think about living in GOD, and in the Now, at all. But it is logically impossible to lose, or avoid, Being, the infinity of space and the eternity of time, the eternal NOW--anything less than this is not GOD, it is a soma product of the egoic mind (Tolle), the psyche, the ego. One is free to stay on the mind/body level, but, IMO, that would be like a caterpillar choosing not to become a butterfly.

Yes, it is true that there are whole classes of people, like the Amish, who refuse to live in the 21st Century, but they cannot logically say there is no 21st C for those of us who choose to live in it.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/28/08 04:40 AM

I think, as you know Rev, that the concept of god is whatever a believer believes is god. We recognise god in our own imagination. You say god is not a being, others say he is and yet others think she is not. All are correct within their own belief or faith. TT, probably quite correctly, points out that this is the ego talking, but what are we as humans if not for our ego, or at least our sense of self? We find it easier to worship something we understand, or go for the 'passeth understanding' option and, like an agnostic, agree it is all a mystery.

If you agree with the idea of god being a person's own construct according to their own faith or belief then there is no argument against the considered decision that god does not in fact exist. It would have to be allowed it is at least as likely as that he/she/it does.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/28/08 07:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
GOD, "is just Being, not a Being."

Now one can resent thinking of GOD as Being. Or--and I would say at great cost and sense of well being--one can even refuse to think about living in GOD, and in the Now, at all. But it is logically impossible to lose, or avoid, Being, the infinity of space and the eternity of time, the eternal NOW--anything less than this is not GOD, it is a soma product of the egoic mind (Tolle), the psyche, the ego. One is free to stay on the mind/body level, but, IMO, that would be like a caterpillar choosing not to become a butterfly.

Yes, it is true that there are whole classes of people, like the Amish, who refuse to live in the 21st Century, but they cannot logically say there is no 21st C for those of us who choose to live in it.

6 billion people live in the now without recognizing it and taking that ignorance all the way to the grave without consciously experiencing it.
Tolle himself was near suicide in the now before awakening to the now in experience.
Not everyone of course need dive so low before awakening to it, and usually if one is immersed in the pleasantries of the world of instant gratification, it is rather easy to ignore it in favor of feeding the addictions of the senses and beliefs
Simply hearing about the now or talking about the now does not bring the awareness into the now.
God does not will one to experience the now, nor does God have any investment in humanity living in the now, because from the point of reference of the now, no thing is ever out of place.
A child strangles his mother in the now.
A man commits suicide in the now.
From the now these are all illusions, plays created on a stage, where the eternal soul acts out a story line and goes home when its all over.

Being in the now is to live in spirit, to be in the world but not of the world. This is what frees the mind and body from the illusions of sickness and death, and makes all things possible.

6 billion people live in the now just like you Rev. They can talk about it, imagine it, and all while they go to war, to work, and to the grave....With judgments and attachments to the relative world intact.

It's one thing to talk about the Truth and another to Experience it.

Sin is identifying ignorance as innocence.
Being born again is to take the awareness into the now and to be something other than the body and its attachments to life and even death.

Until such a time as the awakening to the now, God is being as if patiently waiting to connect with the soul should it decide to come around to its true nature to take its rightful position as creator instead of victim to nature.

Such is the nature of things.
Natural law of free will allows for one to make the choice for ignorance or enlightenment.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/28/08 08:47 PM

IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A TRIA-LOGUE GOING ON HERE; OR, WITH SAM INVOLVED, NOW AND THEN, PERHAPS IT IS A QUADRA-LOGUE?

BY THE WAY, WHAT DO WE CALL IT IF WE GET THIRTEEN?--A TRISKADIKA-LOGUE? IMO, THIS MEANS THAT JESUS AND HIS TWELVE DISCIPLES (STUDENTS) CONSTITUTED A TRISKADIKA-LOGUE.
===================================================
BY WAY OF HISTORIC BACKGROUND:
If my understanding of church history is correct, the first Christians were under the leadership of Matthew, Mark, Luke--the author of The Acts of the Apostles, as well as the Gospel which bear his name--and John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude--the last both brothers of Jesus.

Following the death, "resurrection?" and "ascension?" of Jesus into heaven?--See Acts 1:9-11--it was generally accepted, and prophesied, by all the members of the early churches, that Jesus would return from heaven and restore the kingdom of Israel. It never happened.

What actually happened was the modern Israel, which was founded in 1948. It chose to be a republic, not a theocratic monarchy. I wonder why.

No one predicted, or even guessed, what actually did happen after the first century.

Christians, from the time of the disciples and the Apostle Paul suffered dreadful persecution until the Edict of Milan.

Definition: The Edict of Milan was granted by Emperor Constantine the Great(? The great what.) in the West and Licinius Augustus in the East in 313 granting religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire. In addition, the Edict of Milan ordered the restitution of property confiscated from Christians.

Very interesting!
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/constantine/g/edictofmilan.htm

Following this, in 325 CE (common era), the spiritual seeds sowed by Jesus in his short ministry, watered by his blood and that of the martyrs (witnesses) took root.

As a result Christianity became an accepted religion within the mighty Roman Empire. This led to the bishops of the Church of Rome, under the leadership of the Pope, to go on to rival power of the power of the Emperor of Rome. [More on this, later.]
===============================================================

Back to the present theme. As I said in my last post, "One is free to stay on the mind/body (psyche/soma) level " and let me add here: We are free to do this for as long as we wish to do so. IMO, this relative freedom of the will is what makes us truly human beings.

BTW, could we agree that there are certain human-like beings--some of whom actually admit to having little, or no, freedom of the Will (note the W)--who are not truly human?
================
As TT puts it: "God is being as if patiently waiting to connect with the soul should it decide to come around to its true nature to take its rightful position as creator instead of victim to nature.

Such is the nature of things.
Natural law of free will allows for one to make the choice for ignorance or enlightenment."

We are not just caterpillars, forced by the power of evolution to become butterflies, unconscious of the process; IMO, we can actually play an active and conscious role in the whole process of becoming more and more humane.
===============================
let the quadra-logue evolve.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/28/08 11:26 PM

Rev- Any more people than one person makes a conversation or discussion. There does not have to be restriction to 2 only, in fact other views open up other possibilities and the 'other possibilities' are the reason why many of us participate in discussions such as those at this site.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/29/08 07:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking


BY WAY OF HISTORIC BACKGROUND:
If my understanding of church history is correct, the first Christians were under the leadership of Matthew, Mark, Luke--the author of The Acts of the Apostles, as well as the Gospel which bear his name--and John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude--the last both brothers of Jesus.
Following the death, "resurrection?" and "ascension?" of Jesus into heaven?--See Acts 1:9-11--it was generally accepted, and prophesied, by all the members of the early churches, that Jesus would return from heaven and restore the kingdom of Israel. It never happened.

According to Acts Jude was the brother of James not Jesus.
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


The above scripture in Acts had nothing to do with Jesus the man coming back to Jerusalem or anywhere else. The description was in regard to enlightenment coming to all places in the world including Jerusalem, Judea, Sumeria and unto the uttermost part of the Earth.
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you"
This was his message not only to his disciples but to everyone, and Jesus was speaking to the enlightenment that would come to his disciples not in the age of Jesus but in a following lifetime after the one shared with Jesus.
But this was not to be the same experience of enlightenment that they shared while being under the tutelage of Jesus, but the Resurrection same as Jesus underwent in that time, sans the crucifixion.

The new Jerusalem had nothing to do with any political event in 1948. It hasn't been realized yet by man in this age, tho it has been hinted as coming into realization in this age, which will pave the way for all of humanity to see more clearly the path to greater understanding and freedom, from illusions and suffering of the ego.
The build up of knowledge of the absolute in several teachings of this age is part and parcel to the prophesy of the New Jerusalem.
There are more people on this planet with an awareness of enlightenment and of God in the spiritual sense than in any age known to written history that has been discovered to date.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Back to the present theme. As I said in my last post, "One is free to stay on the mind/body (psyche/soma) level " and let me add here: We are free to do this for as long as we wish to do so. IMO, this relative freedom of the will is what makes us truly human beings.

What makes us truly human beings, is the Being part similar to what Tolle eludes to in God Being.
Our truest nature is not in the suffering of the illusions of ignorance that is of the ego and our idealized individual freedom of identification with images and idols of ritual and attachment.
Humanity without wisdom and awareness of our true nature is not humanity. In fact we are not much better than animals in some respect, fighting for survival and at the cost of our enlightenment.
The one thing that sets us apart from the animals is our inherent ability to evolve or devolve thru the choices we make.
Animals do not have the capability to make that choice.
The fact that we can act like animals does not do justice to the ability of the human being. I suppose in some kind of carnival kind of way we could congratulate ourselves for the talent but then if we really knew what we were capable of we would not be wasting time playing small, anymore than we would choose to scramble for pennies if we owned the Bank and the mint that prints the money.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking


BTW, could we agree that there are certain human-like beings--some of whom actually admit to having little, or no, freedom of the Will (note the W)--who are not truly human?
================
As TT puts it: "God is being as if patiently waiting to connect with the soul should it decide to come around to its true nature to take its rightful position as creator instead of victim to nature.

Such is the nature of things.
Natural law of free will allows for one to make the choice for ignorance or enlightenment."

We are not just caterpillars, forced by the power of evolution to become butterflies, unconscious of the process; IMO, we can actually play an active and conscious role in the whole process of becoming more and more humane.

As my teacher used to say.."That would be the only game in town."
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/29/08 03:52 PM

THE WAY TO KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM
===============================
Quote:
The one who knows NOT, and does not know how ignorant he/she is, is a fool. Do not allow such a person to waste your time.

The one who knows NOT, and KNOWS that he knows not, but is hungry for knowledge, is a student willing to learn; teach that person where to find knowledge and the wise use of it.

The one who knows, but knows NOT that he knows, is probably asleep. Gently awaken that person.

The one who knows and, with deep humility, KNOWS that he knows and is one who knows how to teach. Take the time to be a student.

Wise people are those who, when needed, are willing to play either role.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/29/08 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
THE WAY TO KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM
===============================
Quote:
The one who knows NOT, and does not know how ignorant he/she is, is a fool. Do not allow such a person to waste your time.

The one who knows NOT, and KNOWS that he knows not, but is hungry for knowledge, is a student willing to learn; teach that person where to find knowledge and the wise use of it.

The one who knows, but knows NOT that he knows, is probably asleep. Gently awaken that person.

The one who knows and, with deep humility, KNOWS that he knows and is one who knows how to teach. Take the time to be a student.

Wise people are those who, when needed, are willing to play either role.


The way OF knowledge and wisdom

Knowing when to play the role comes as the surrender to God.
Surrendering to God comes with knowing God and experiencing God.
One who knows God is always the student and always the voice of the Teacher thru surrender.
As a great master once said:
Mt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mk 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Lk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.


In order to Teach, one does not teach from the knowledge of individual and personality, but by personality stepping aside and allowing omniscience to speak in the moment. This is the only way one can give to the student exactly what the student needs.

Of course there has to be a student. Otherwise no matter what is said, even by God, if the ego is resistant to anything other than what it holds onto in relative truth and choice in personal identity and pride nothing is going to be seen or heard. Which is why the same guy said:

Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 09/30/08 05:33 PM

I forgot to add, the way to knowledge and wisdom is to first have an experience of that which knowledge and wisdom are derived, rather than to act out what you imagine they should be, according to the ego's best interpretation of what is best for the ego.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/02/08 09:04 PM

This just came to me: If there was only one Jesus of Nazareth it is obvious that he was not overly concerned about catering to his ego-mind (psyche). Otherwise he would have left us a definite record--an auto-bio about who he was and what was going on in his life and time. As I said (revised) in the old thread:

I have been asked many times: If by means of a magical time machine you were transported back in time and as a result of that experience you became convinced that there was no such a person as the Jesus of history, what would this do to your faith?

My response usually is: My focus is on the nature and meaning of the message, not on who was the messenger. Sure I would like to know more about our ancestors who lived in those day, but I suspect that what we call the Golden Rule, and other great love-based messages, is the work of many great people from all over. Perhaps several of them were called Jesus.

BTW, 'Jesus' literally means: "the I-am-ness in each of us is the source of salvation--total health."
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/02/08 10:32 PM

BTW, TT, you mentioned above
Quote:
Knowing when to play the role comes as the surrender to God. Surrendering to God comes with knowing God and experiencing God.
For me, this poses two, maybe three, questions: First, how do you surrender to 'God'? Second, how do you experience 'God'? And, third, in what sense is 'God' male, female, or any kind of objective being?

Please, keep it as brief as you can.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/02/08 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
First, how do you surrender to 'God'?

The same way as anyone who has surrendered themselves to God. It is the same for anyone as it was for Jesus or any other spiritual master.
It is not a great feat or effort, in fact it is the simplest thing you could do. It takes far more energy to maintain the illusions of life and the ego than it does to settle into the present moment and be One with God.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Second, how do you experience 'God'?

As a reflection within all things and as no thing at all.
You could say I experience myself as a reflection of God in thought and activity, and I experience myself in everything and everyone.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
And, third, in what sense is 'God' male, female, or any kind of objective being?

God is neither male or female, and It is not an objective being.
It is beyond all objectivity created within the relative, but not limited by Self reflection and Self awareness.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
This just came to me: If there was only one Jesus of Nazareth it is obvious that he was not overly concerned about catering to his ego-mind (psyche). Otherwise he would have left us a definite record--an auto-bio about who he was and what was going on in his life and time. As I said (revised) in the old thread:

I guess this would change your past identification with Jesus as calling himself a "Jew" or being a "Jew," since he was not concerned with labeling himself or defining himself by any title other than that which would be the same for everyone else. "Son of God" an incarnation or reflection of spirit and cousin to the ego even tho deluded and separated by illusion and belief as it was.

His legacy was the result of his being who he was and thru the examples of his total surrender to each moment and situation as he met it.
Sometimes he was gentle and loving, and other times he was loving and cut the head off of the ego. Whatever served to open the eyes of the soul that was ready to evolve he was willing to do. As he said to his disciples, Jn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
and in Luke
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.


The latter was the sword he used to separate ego from the Self so that the attachment of Father and son, mother and daughter in relationship that was of ego could be broken, to reveal a greater relationship of ones own Self.
He epitomized the Golden rule which can only be acted upon in total surrender, not from the ego and the intellect in boundaries that are the attachment to ideas of suffering and illusion.

The ego steps into the hole of the suffering friend and sympathizes with the illusion creating two people suffering from the same illusion. The enlightened offer a hand from the outside of the hole to help separate the ego from the suffering soul, and by example offer the greater reality of the Self or of the Spirit.

The golden rule of the ego respects the others illusion and will offer fuel to the fire of suffering if it believes that is what the ego wants.
The enlightened know suffering is an illusion and what the ego wants is temporary at best, a distraction from the underlying beliefs that it will eventually return itself to once the distraction fades from the present experience.
So humanity in its best idea of selfless service is to give what it believes is real even tho the giver believes in suffering as a reality and a truth of relative creation.
Fear as an underlying truth to keep within the boundaries of all thought and experience is not something one should give to others but it is fear that one offers in consoling one in their illusions by helping to fortify its reality and a distraction from it.
This type of rule is not golden nor is it real. Only one who is free of illusion and ego can give something of value to another.
Otherwise the giver is dis-eased and can only offer their illusions as a bandaid to apply to another's illusions.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/03/08 09:43 PM

TT, when you say
Quote:
The enlightened know suffering is an illusion ...
are you quoting yourself? Or who?

Without any intention of being discourteous, this comment begs so many questions: Are you speaking for yourself? Do you think of yourself as one of "the enlightened" ones?

And, what do you think such a statement means to those of us who would like to be--here, I am inclined to include myself--but who do not feel we are fully enlightened, yet?
What of the partially enlightened?
What of those trapped entirely in their somas and psyches?
Would it make any sense at all to them?

Consider the following scenario:
I live in an area where, I am happy to say, we are all good neighbours to one another.

For example, currently, all of us do a good job keeping our properties neat and tidy. If, for whatever reason, any one of us lost our marbles, stopped keeping our property tidy, became paranoid and developed a violent, insulting personality and threw our garbage on the properties of others, do you think that all the rest of us would say: Not to worry; smile it is just an illusion?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/04/08 12:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TT, when you say
Quote:
The enlightened know suffering is an illusion ...
are you quoting yourself? Or who?

I'm quoting from the Science and scripture of Yoga, and speaking from my own direct experience.


Originally Posted By: Revlgking

And, what do you think such a statement means to those of us who would like to be--here, I am inclined to include myself--but who do not feel we are fully enlightened, yet?
What of the partially enlightened?
What of those trapped entirely in their somas and psyches?
Would it make any sense at all to them?

As a great master once said, those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear understand.
One would have to be situated only in the Now to understand how illusions are created and perceived by the ego.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Consider the following scenario:
I live in an area where, I am happy to say, we are all good neighbours to one another.

For example, currently, all of us do a good job keeping our properties neat and tidy. If, for whatever reason, any one of us lost our marbles, stopped keeping our property tidy, became paranoid and developed a violent, insulting personality and threw our garbage on the properties of others, do you think that all the rest of us would say: Not to worry; smile it is just an illusion?

Nope. Because you all are attached to the order of surface appearances, any disruption would cause you great dissatisfaction, stress and confusion (that'd be suffering or what is also called the experience of hell).

Such was the case 2000 years ago when the followers of Jesus kept hoping that he would clean up their neighborhoods but instead he helped those that were wanting to clean up their understanding of reality.
For those that were attached to their personal neighborhoods there was no comprehension of the message of his teachings.
He spoke of that which was permanent within themselves and how to bring that out so that those things that were temporary would not be placed above the permanent. But they who could not see or understand what he spoke of went back to protecting their neighborhoods and found great distress when it was invaded or someone through garbage on their property.

They died, trying to keep their paragraphs short and using headings to emphasize their main points, wink and without ever understanding what was spoken of regarding the illusions of belief, in the attachments of the ego.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/04/08 04:50 AM

BTW, O enlightened ones, smile out there: I forgot to mention. My wife and our neighbour talked about this real--not just a hypothetical situation, just yesterday.

There is a young driver in the area who, every now and then, zooms up and down our street and around the near-by corners at a very high speed. They, and I, are very concerned that one of these days he could lose control and cause a serious accident--even kill one of the young children who play in the area. This would cause much real suffering, pain and trouble to himself, his family and to the whole community.

We plan to speak to others in the community about this. We are asking them to keep an eye out and perhaps get a license number. We are not doing this just to be snoopy or to get the driver in trouble, but to see if we can do something to prevent such a tragedy. We are also concerned about helping the driver avoid problems, not just any victims.

Shall I tell people not to worry; that an enlightened one smile has assured me that all tragedies, with all that pain and suffering, are just illusions?

When I hurt--even from the memory of past hurts--I hurt in the NOW. Were I to say otherwise I would be lying. Were I to say that there is nothing I can do to prevent at least some of what causes pain and suffering, which comes my way, I would need to try to delude myself and give in to mental chicanery and sophistic reasoning.

Currently, from a wise health professional, I am receiving much help in dealing with a serious prostate situation. That therapist believes in the basic principle of Tolle and others. She has assured me: somatic conditions are real, not just illusions.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/04/08 06:47 AM

It is cruel and inhuman to assume that tragedies, pain and suffering are illusions, brought upon the sufferer by their own sin, fate or happenstance-- or due to a crease in the Space-Time continuum or some such unfeeling rubbish. Illness and suffering have many causes, some of which we are unable to change, others which we can foresee and remediate. Some cope through prayer, others offer help and support and others condemn with spiritual superiority. May the latter never need the comfort of others.

Rev-- We too had a guy in the neighbourhood who would spend the weekends hooning around on his motorbike really, really fast. It was both noisy and unsafe. He does it no longer as he killed himself by running into a truck. Whilst we acknowledged the grief of his family and were sorry for the truckdriver we were all relieved that he had not taken someone else with him, and peace and quiet had returned.
Try and stop it in your area. Death in these cicumstances is unnecessary- not illusionary.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/04/08 08:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking


Shall I tell people not to worry; that an enlightened one smile has assured me that all tragedies, with all that pain and suffering, are just illusions?

No that would be foolish. You neither understand the concept nor have you been assured. One non understanding person trying to tell another what they don't understand won't create anything more than more misunderstanding.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

When I hurt--even from the memory of past hurts--I hurt in the NOW.

Actually, no you don't.
In order to be in the NOW as referred to by Tolle, would mean there were no preconceived ideas about the experience based on the past or any projections into the future that are from the stored emotional attachments you have with experience. Perfect innocence with absolutely no fear.
By replacing the past impressions with the NOW, any experience would be experienced as if it were new, and the first time.
When we layer past impressions onto experience with fear, judgment drives up the emotional content of experience often creating the idea that pain is even more intense and dramatic than it really is.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Were I to say otherwise I would be lying. Were I to say that there is nothing I can do to prevent at least some of what causes pain and suffering, which comes my way, I would need to try to delude myself and give in to mental chicanery and sophistic reasoning.

Were you feeling something and trying to say you weren't would be a false statement, and would have little meaning. Were you to say you could or couldn't prevent suffering would be relative to what you know about reality and your relationship with it as you understand it.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Currently, from a wise health professional, I am receiving much help in dealing with a serious prostate situation. That therapist believes in the basic principle of Tolle and others. She has assured me: somatic conditions are real, not just illusions.

They are very real to one who is immersed in the condition of the body and the world. To someone who is immersed in the soul and spirit of the body, the condition is reflective of belief and beliefs change not only the experience but how it is created.

The entire Gospel according to Jesus refers to this illusion of identifying with the limitations of the body.
But you don't believe he really healed anyone or raised the dead so it would be a moot point.

Originally Posted By: Ellis
It is cruel and inhuman to assume that tragedies, pain and suffering are illusions, brought upon the sufferer by their own sin, fate or happenstance-- or due to a crease in the Space-Time continuum or some such unfeeling rubbish.

Any assumption is only an assumption, and is neither cruel or inhuman but just plain ignorance.
Originally Posted By: Ellis

Illness and suffering have many causes, some of which we are unable to change, others which we can foresee and remediate.

All illness and suffering is created by stress. The medical industry knows this much. How it accumulates within the personality is by choice, how far it goes to invade the mechanics of the body is due to how much one piles into belief and into the emotional body.
This carries on in ones life and continues into lives that follow if one does not change their relationship with reality.
Originally Posted By: Ellis

Some cope through prayer, others offer help and support and others condemn with spiritual superiority. May the latter never need the comfort of others.

Simply coping with the beliefs that create stress and sickness, never approaches the cause. Just as most medical doctors cannot predict the nature of individual health based on the environment because everyone deals with it different emotionally, and some don't react to the same stress the same way, the best they can do is treat the symptoms.
Medicine is not an exact science. At best they can created drugs that might temporarily become effective but if one continues to maintain the stress within the body the sickness can return. The average age of a physician is less than the human who has little knowledge of medicine and yet we are willing to give doctors the authority to tell us how to live our lives. The inadequacies of the medical profession are just a reflection of how little man knows about itself.

In just about every case where healing takes place in life threatening disease, doctors have noted that the patient has made a fundamental shift in their way of thinking, and instead of ignoring their reality become more aware of it and how they interact with it. Rather than making illusory assumptions they become more conscious of how they have come to be where they are, and how they can make changes to create a different life and a healthier body.

People still believe if you go outside without warm clothes in the cold you will catch a cold, when it has nothing to do with catching a virus which won't matter if you are dressed warm or not.
This is just a simple example of illusion created from lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of reality.
People also assume when someones body dies their consciousness dies with it, and so they not only mourn their attachment to the person but the loss that the dead person has suffered by dying.

If someone throws garbage on your lawn the only suffering is the attachment to a certain order of things. Life goes on and no one has been physically damaged. One could easily walk out into the yard and pick it up and go one with their life. Instead most pile up the anxiety and in extreme cases allow it to create health problems.
How ridiculous is it to let such a thing cause such a condition?
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The more people have, the more they fear to lose.
One who has nothing has nothing to lose and will not accumulate that stress. Instead they might stress about something completely different.
Each individual creates their own illusive reality within their beliefs, and like a herd of animals people get together to discuss their pain and their fear to make it as real as they can and as dramatic as they can.

Older people who start losing friends begin to make the obituary page a priority read at the breakfast table instead of planning the day. More focus is put on death than on life for people addicted to this way of thinking.

Spiritual science approaches the reality of the everlasting soul and by giving that which is forever the attention, it fundamentally changes the experience of that which is temporary.

People think they have evolved beyond the stone age but superstition has not changed with the attachments that are created by fear and ego since man lived in caves.
That way of thinking, projecting outward from the collective fear of mortality, is the illusion which produces beliefs based in fantasy and ignorance.

Whenever the enlightened approach the ego with the truth the ego fights until the death to protect its illusions. So the enlightened do not try to change anyone with their ego so conditioned to be on the defense.
The best someone can do with the truth is to plant seeds and allow fertile soil to sprout the experience of truth when the conditions are right.

As long as the ego is unwilling to see or hear anything other than what is conditionally protected in the personal box. Truth remains illusive.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/04/08 01:48 PM

===================================================================
TT. yesterday, in post number #27929, I asked:
Quote:
TT, when you say
"The enlightened know suffering is an illusion ..."

I asked: Are you quoting yourself? Or who?"
You responded:
Quote:
I'm quoting from the Science and scripture of Yoga, and speaking from my own direct experience.

===================================================================
In the NOW, Ellis writes:
Quote:
It is cruel and inhuman to assume that tragedies, pain and suffering are illusions, brought upon the sufferer by their own sin, fate or happenstance-- or due to a crease in the Space-Time continuum or some such unfeeling rubbish.


Thanks Ellis! My common-sense detector--I presume you have one-- tells me that your BS detector--I assume I have one--is doing a good job picking up that there is a fair amount of obscurantist sophistry and illogical, opaque baffle gab out there, much of it bordering on chicanery. And not just among the gurus of spirituality. Some of them are politicians, economists, financial advisers, bankers, educators, clergy--all kinds of "experts".


ABOUT CHRISTIAN SCIENCE (CS)
============================
I once had a licensed practitioner of Christian Science give me a call. He offered to come to visit me in my study and tell me about CS and why we do need medical science at all. Being curious and open-minded about what he had to say I agreed to see him.

He said that he was impressed by a talk that he heard me give, on the radio, on the POWER OF FAITH AS AN AID TO ACHIEVING HEALTH.

As one who has always accepted the human spirit in cooperation with the human mind can be of great help to having a healthy body, I spoke of what I knew, at that point, of the nature and function of faith.

I quoted the medical research--still widely accepted--found in the literature to the effect that medical science now agrees that fifty percent and even more--some say at least 75%--of all diseases are not strictly somatic. Since the 1930's it has been OK for doctors to accept the reality and importance of a psychosomatic approach to disease and health. Real physical disease can be caused by a negative mind set. In my talk I even added the word spirit. I spoke of pneumapsychosomatic--spirit/mind/body--disease. I said: Many people, especially people addicted to alcohol, drugs, nicotine, food and the like will not be made well by medicine (soma theraphy), or psychology (psychotherapy), alone, until they make the conscious choice--a function of the spirit (pneumatherapy): "I want to be well."

This mention of 'spirit'--which CS writers usually write as Spirit (God)--is what really impressed my CS visitor. Using their own literature, including the famous book, SCIENCE AND HEALTH--WITH A KEY TO THE SCRIPTURES, by Mary Baker Eddy, I have made a study of CS. When my visitor finished making the point that ALL conditions, even economic ones, must be treated by spiritual means, only, I said:

"If you really believe what you say you do, why are you wearing glasses? I also notice that you have fillings in your teeth and that you have a lot less hair than I do." He offered no explanation for his lack of faith.

"I agree" I said, "the day may come when we WILL have a spiritually structured body...I am not opposed to this concept. But, meanwhile, commonsense tells me that we have this soma to deal with--to keep as healthy as possible, until death do us part. This means that there are times when somatic therapy seems the commonsense thing to do."

There was a pause. He left me some literature and left without saying another word.

BTW, Ellis, as I read Tolle I have not noticed anything, yet, which defies commonsense. If I do, I will let you know. We can talk about it. Also, I notice when class members question his concepts, or even disagree with them, he does not admonish them and treat them as if they are mental and pneumatological (spiritual) midgets.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/04/08 05:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
as I read Tolle I have not noticed anything, yet, which defies commonsense. If I do, I will let you know. We can talk about it.

That makes perfect sense and confirms everything I have said about your statements of joining Tolle in at-one-ment and in the presence of NOW. Intellect and instruction precedes the experience of the atonement and the NOW. Then it also makes sense if all of your psychological eggs (so to speak) have been placed in one basket you will need to adjust your focus and attention on something that is different from the habit of your beliefs and ideals, in order to find comprehension in understanding and experience.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking


Also, I notice when class members question his concepts, or even disagree with them, he does not admonish them and treat them as if they are mental and pneumatological (spiritual) midgets.


No he wouldn't, but it is not often unusual for the ego to feel as if he has, and by the feelings generated thru judgment and the ego as it protects its illusions and beliefs, feel as if they are being treated as ignorant.

Andrew Cohen has written a lot of the Teacher Student relationship. Similar in its direction are the writings of John Welwood
On Spiritual Authority

John Welwood



The false prophet and the genuine spiritual master both undermine the habitual patterns of self. Yet one does this in a way that creates bondage, while the other does it in a way that promotes liberation. What is this important difference? How does genuine spiritual authority operate? This is not a simple question.

It is impossible to set up an ideal model for what a true spiritual teacher should look like, any more than we could elevate one style of therapy as the model that all others should follow. Carl Rogers, Fritz Perls and Milton Erickson, for instance, achieved therapeutic results in strikingly different ways. Each had a different personality type, style of working, and probably a different type of client with whom he might be most effective. Spiritual teachers also come in many different forms and guises, and it is fruitless to try to spell out exactly how a good guru will behave.
Instead we need a more subtle analysis that looks at what goes on between teacher and student. Two questions are particularly important here: How does spiritual authority operate in the relationship between teacher and student? And what is the source from which a teacher derives that authority?

Relative Spiritual Authority


Spiritual authority is, in part, interrelational; that is, a given teacher has such authority only for those who respond to his or her presence and teachings. A disciple— literally, a "learner" —is one who recognizes that he or she has something important to learn from this particular teacher. Often the choice of a teacher is as unpredictable and mysterious as the attraction to a potential lover. You sense that you have something essential to learn here, something that no one else has ever imparted to you before. And this recognition is what allows the teacher to take on a certain authority for you.
Many people today question the need for spiritual teachers at all, claiming, in the spirit of democracy, that everyone should be their own master. Many traditions do in fact assert that the true teacher is only found within. Yet in the early stages of one’s development one does not know how to find or listen to the inner master, or to distinguish genuine inner guidance from more superficial wishes and preferences. Just as one would turn to an acknowledged master in any field one wanted to pursue in depth, so a person who seeks to overcome the limitations of egocentricity will naturally be drawn to someone who has actually mastered that work. The role of effective teachers is to instruct, encourage and correct the student, as well as to provide an example of what is possible. Effective teachers also try to see what individual students most need at each step of their development, rather than trying to fit the student into a preprogrammed agenda.
Thus spiritual teachers derive a certain relative authority through the actual help they offer their students. This is not unlike the authority that clients grant therapists in their work together. Although I may feel uneasy with the authority clients grant me as a therapist, I am willing to accept it, especially in the early stages of the work. I understand that clients can more readily enter into the process of shedding old patterns if they grant me the authority to guide them. Beyond the conventional authority granted by professional training and certification, or by transference idealizations, the real source of my authority is my focus on clients’ well-being and my capacity to help them find a deeper relationship with themselves. Granting me this authority can be a step toward recognizing their own authority— that they are indeed the authors of their own experience, rather than passive victims of circumstance.
In a parallel, though far more profound way, a genuine spiritual master’s presence may serve as a mirror that reflects back to students qualities of their awakened being: openness, generosity, discernment, humor, gentleness, acceptance, compassion, straightforwardness, strength, and courage.

Absolute Authority


Beyond the relative authority that teachers assume through the help they give their students, true masters also have access to an absolute, unconditional source of authority—awakened being. Since this is a universal source of wisdom that is available to everyone, the genuine spiritual teacher is more than willing to help others find it themselves, if they are ready.
The genuine teacher is one who has realized the essential nature of human consciousness, usually through having practiced a self-knowledge discipline such as meditation for many years. In contrast to false teachers, who often create a condition of dependency in the student by claiming special access to truth, authentic teachers delight in sharing the source of their own realization with the student. This often involves giving students an awareness practice, along with pointing-out instructions that help them directly recognize their own nature. This kind of guidance sharpens students’ perceptions so that they can better discern whether the teacher’s words are true. Without a practice or method that gives them direct knowledge of what is true, students are totally dependent on the teacher to define their reality for them.
The more the students’ discrimination and discernment grow, the more they can recognize and appreciate the teacher’s mastery; just as when we study and practice any art, we come to recognize the skill of an accomplished master much more than we could have before. When the teaching leads to a deeper connection to one’s own being, this appreciation often grows into natural feelings of love, respect and devotion.
Such devotion may look like slavishness to the secular eye. Yet true devotion does not aggrandize the teacher or debase the student. Rather, it is a way of recognizing and honoring wisdom, awareness and truth as higher realities than the egoic realm of confusion, ignorance and self-deception. Devotion is a sign of a shift in allegiance—away from the petty tyrant of egocentricity toward the call of our larger being, whose wisdom the teacher embodies in fully developed form. Yet devotion can have its own kind of dangers, especially in our culture, and can lead to certain pitfalls on the path unless it is grounded in an awareness practice that cuts through self-deception and sharpens the student’s discernment.

Surrender and Submission


To appreciate the potential value of commitment to a spiritual teacher and teaching, it is essential to distinguish between mindful surrender, which is an opening to a deeper dimension of truth, and mindless submission, which is a deadening flight from freedom.
The notion of surrender is widely misunderstood in our culture. It often conjures up images of "come out with your hands up"—waving a white flag, admitting defeat, being humiliated. For many people today, the idea of surrender implies giving up one’s intelligence or individuality and adopting a weak, dependent, submissive position. True surrender, however, is never an enslavement, but rather a step toward the discovery of real power. It is the act of yielding to a larger intelligence, without trying to control the outcome.
True surrender is not blind. It requires real discrimination—the capacity to recognize the necessity of completely opening oneself and letting go. Surrender does not have a finite object; one does not give oneself to something limited and bounded. If one does, then it is most likely submission—to the teacher’s personality, or the "Cause."
Submission is a handing over of power to a person one idealizes, based on the hope of gaining something in return. One seeks approval from an idealized other in order to feel good about oneself. This is a symptom of weakness rather than strength—"I give myself to my guru because he is so great and I am so small." The more one depends on another for validation, the more one is likely to act in ways that compromise one’s integrity. And the more one’s integrity becomes compromised, the less one trusts oneself, which increases one’s dependency on the leader.
Critics of gurus see all involvements with spiritual masters in this light, failing to distinguish between submission as a developmentally regressive retreat from maturity, and genuine surrender, which is a progressive step beyond egocentricity toward a fuller connection with being. They fail to distinguish between the giving of surrender, which brings increase—of love, intelligence, wisdom—and the giving of submission, which results in decrease and loss.
With a genuine spiritual master, surrendering means presenting oneself in a completely honest, naked way, without trying to hold anything back or maintain any facade. How rarely we let anyone see us as we are, without hiding behind a mask of some kind. Being in the presence of a true master is a rare opportunity to let down all our pretenses, to unmask and reveal all of what we are, our egocentric failings as well as our strengths. This is quite different from submissively trying to be "good" or "devoted," to please someone in order to feel worthy.
Submission has a narcissistic quality, in that followers seek to bask in the reflected glory of their leader as a way to inflate their self-importance. The authentic teacher-student relationship leads beyond narcissism by showing students how to devote themselves to a greater power that lies within, yet beyond themselves.
The acid test is not how well the students please the master, but how fully they meet and respond to life’s challenges. Through becoming more responsive, transparent, and open with their teacher, they learn to approach all people and situations in the same way. In this way, genuine surrender helps one open toward all beings, instead of enslaving one to the parochial perspectives of an in-group.

In Search of a Genuine Master


How then does one recognize a master one can trust? Certainly no single teacher or teaching could be expected to appeal to all people, any more than any single psychotherapist or school of therapy could be effective for all potential clients. The ultimate criterion for judging teachers is whether they guide their students toward a more authentic, transparent quality of human presence and being-in-the-world.
Genuine teachers encourage self-respect as the basis for self-transcendence. And they are willing to reveal the source of their authority and wisdom to their students, so that the student’s path is based on experiential realization rather than on ideology or belief. They also recognize ambiguity and paradox, rather than insisting on absolute certitude in the One and Only Truth. They do not give their disciples any privileged status above the uninitiated. They do not manipulate the emotions of their students, but appeal to their innate intelligence. Instead of promoting herd behavior, they recognize the importance of solitude and inner inquiry. And their own realization is based not just on dramatic revelations, but on extensive testing and practice.
A teacher’s embodiment of love, truth and living presence is a much more reliable gauge than whether his or her lifestyle, appearance or personal quirks fit our image of what a spiritual person should look like. The annals of all spiritual traditions include examples of masters whose behavior and lifestyle challenges the prevailing conventions.
Great teachers also have their share of human foibles. Often they are effective precisely because they are so human, because they are so deeply in touch with the nature of the human sickness in themselves. The Buddhist sage Vimalakirti, to whom many bodhisattvas came for teachings, was always sick in bed, and when asked about this, said, "I am sick because all beings are sick." If the spiritual path is about transforming our core sickness and neurosis, then we can hardly expect spiritual teachers and communities to manifest in a totally pure, spotless way. Yet Americans are often quite naive in their expectations of teachers, as the Zen teacher Philip Kapleau points out:
"In the West a roshi is expected to [have] flawless conduct ... But this idealistic view can blind one to the merits of a teacher ... A Japanese long experienced in Zen once told me, ‘My roshi does have character flaws, yet of the teachers I have had he is the only one who has taught me real Zen and I am exceedingly grateful to him.’ "
Undoubtedly the most important guideline in evaluating a teacher is the effect he or she has upon us. In replying to a question about whether a master should be "a man of self-control who lives a righteous life," the Vedanta teacher Nisagardatta Maharaj replied:
"Such you will find many of —and no use to you. A guru can show the way back home to your Self. What has this to do with the character or temperament of the person he appears to be? ... The only way you can judge is by the change in yourself when you are in his company ... If you understand yourself with more than usual clarity and depth, it means you have met with the right man."
The Buddha responded in a similar vein when approached by a group of villagers, the Kalamas, who had been visited by various monks expounding their different doctrines. They asked the Buddha, "Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks spoke the truth and which falsehood?" To which the Buddha replied:
"It is proper for you to doubt, to be uncertain ... Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know, ‘These things are good, these things are not blamable; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness.’ "
The Buddha specifically advised the Kalamas that they could recognize a worthy teaching by how much it helped them reduce the afflictions of attachment, aversion, and delusion.
In sum, the question of spiritual authority is a subtle and difficult matter that permits no easy answers or hasty conclusions. True and false teachers represent but two ends of a broader spectrum of more or less spiritually mature human beings. Some teachers may have some genuine realization, but have not fully integrated it, so that their teaching remains incomplete. Some start out with good intentions, but are not ripe enough to avoid leading their followers astray. Others may be quite wise, but lacking in the skillful means necessary to communicate their wisdom in a way that truly helps their students.
To discount all spiritual teachers because of the acts of charlatans and false prophets is as unprofitable as refusing to handle money because there are counterfeit bills in circulation. As Nevitt Sanford stressed in the classic study, The Authoritarian Personality, the abuse of authority is hardly any reason to reject authority where it is useful and legitimate. In the present age of cultural upheaval, declining morality, family instability, and global chaos, the world’s great spiritual masters may be humanity’s most precious assets. Glossing over important distinctions between true and false teachers, and how the student’s relationship with them differs, only contributes to the confusion of our age, and retards the growth and transformation that are required for humanity to survive and prosper in the times to come.

John Welwood, Ph.D. is a psychotherapist in San Francisco, associate editor of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, and author of six books, including Journey of the Heart, Love and Awakening and Ordinary Magic. Material in this article will appear in his forthcoming book, Toward a Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Psychotherapy, and the Path of Personal and Spiritual Transformation. © John Welwood, 1999.

The words that I remember from my childhood still are true.
That there's none so blind as those that will not see and those who lack the courage and say its dangerous to try.
Well they just don't know that love eternal will not be denied
-Justin Hayward-(The Moody Blues)


The truth needs no defense. If anyone remembers that there is Eternal Truth or not is irrelevant; fortunately, truth is not democratic.
Once, everyone was convinced that the earth was flat and the sun rotated around it, but no change in the orbit of our daystar ever occurred because of mankind's beliefs. Nor did our spherical globe contract to a plane to align with ignorant humans.
Similarly, for more that two thousand years, most of our race have believed that the Absolute One was a myth or inaccessible to all but a fortunate few who were monks or nuns - those who have renounced everything of the world in order to devote their entire lives to the realization of the Eternal.
In the absence of knowledge of the effortless path of growth of consciousness, any strange belief about the difficulty of growth of consciousness has been taken for the truth. But the Truth has never changed. It has remained crystalline, pure, forever isolated from the strange mutations of space and time, patiently waiting for the forgetful children to remember. And as soon as even one remembers, the Truth is there, Wholly and completely, in all its radiant Glory, for the Truth also permeates every particle of the created worlds, the Truth is everywhere, always.

The enlightened have undying Love for humanity. Like good parents, they have saved the best present for last. Our race has matured greatly in the last five thousand years.
This is not to say there is not still a great deal of work to do; there obviously is. This is not to say that we have yet healed the Earth's problems, created by human ignorance and greed; we obviously have a long war ahead.
But the fact is that more and more people today are dedicating themselves to love and the healing of humanity; once a certain threshold is passed, once there are sufficient members of fully enlightened people walking the Earth, the entire planet and the entire human race are going to experience a phase transition of consciousness.
Those who wish to continue to destroy will no longer be able to do so; those who wish to create in expanding immortality will receive unlimited support from the infinite One. Every desire of theirs will be fulfilled, from the slightest to the greatest.
Those who have learned to align their hearts with one-pointed faith will find that there are no limits to their eager, numinous minds. There are no restrictions of time or space that do not bow to the will of the fully realized human.
Like good parents the enlightened have saved the highest teaching for this moment in the evolution of the Human race.
There have been other experiments of releasing the teaching of enlightenment throughout the unending centuries of human dominion of the earth, but the most important time is NOW. Now we stand at the beginning of full enlightenment and immortality for the whole human race.

The enlightened seek those who wish to align themselves fully with this endeavor, they seek those who have the root desire to become part of the solution and cease to be part of the problem. This process of alignment can be as quick as a soul desires; there are no limits to the rate of acceleration of consciousness available to the human. The only choice is how quickly this will occur.
The curriculum was set long ago, human free will consists only of how quickly one chooses to learn it.
Learn it quickly and enjoy the endless fruits of love, joy, perfect health and immortality; learn it slowly and flirt with fear, illness, misery and death. Choice is everyone's personal pathway, toward the standing path.

The pathway to culturing Eternal Freedom in every moment of Now is not difficult or hard to follow. Indeed, it is present everywhere at each and every moment of created time. Built into the fabric of Creation are certain Ascending pathways; these 108 primary channels are found throughout the structure of all of existence, inside every cell, inside every nervous system, throughout every planet, every sun, every galaxy, every particle from the smallest to the largest of Creation.
These 108 channels lead one directly to the experience of the Absolute; when one has opened ones heart to innocence and ones mind to one-pointedness, the infinite light of the One floods through the human soul, bringing completion to the otherwise endless dance of the Ego, bringing fulfillment to every Human's age old quest for perfection. The dawn of complete enlightenment is inevitable once one innocently treads down even a single Ascending pathway.

Once one has discovered an effective method to know Truth and is systematically opening to the 108 passageways, there are certain additional processes which can accelerate growth. There are certain foods that assist ascension, there are others that hinder it; there are certain behavior patterns that further growth, and there are others that retard it; there are certain exercises that speed development of consciousness, there are others that slow it down.
The fundamental principal is this: the earth is not world of unlimited choices. Rather the earth is a world of unlimited choices, but not all choices available lead to enlightenment.
In fact, reviewing the rather pathetic condition of modern humanity, we have to conclude that most choices lead to suffering and death.
If someone wishes, therefore, to think, It matters not what I do; I can do anything I please, this of course is that someone's choice. But the end result of such thinking is sickness and death, That is precisely the philosophy that has killed every one of our ancestors; do you really want it to be yours?

The wisdom of enlightenment offers another way. Adopt a useful series of boundaries to gain unbounded freedom.
This might sound contradictory: How can boundaries lead to the Unbounded? Even a moments reflection reveals that there is no other way. Perfect invincibility is born from perfect harmlessness. Invulnerability comes from mastering the art of non-violence.
That this flies in the face of traditional thinking and belief is a good sign of the Truth of these words. Rather, it can be such a sign, if one has the necessary humility to analyze honestly the nature of Creation. With perfect fluidity of Grace and utter economy of effort, the Universe continues along the path of least resistance.
Water is ultimately soft, and yet its persistence wears away mountains.
There are no limits to the expanding glory of the human mind, but the way to attain this Reality is through adopting a useful series of limitations, to culture life to realize the Eternal Freedom of perfect Union with the will of God.

What must one give up to realize God? Absolutely nothing. What must one be willing to give up to realize God?
Absolutely everything.
It is the attachments that cripple the growth of consciousness. Where your treasure lies, there will be your heart also. If you are more attached to your home or your family or your job or your status than to the Absolute One, you will have your home and your family and your job and your status until death comes knocking on your door and you will not have the Absolute One, in knowledge, experience and in the nature of your being as you move in and out of the manifest creations of life and death.
If, on the other hand, you seek first the Absolute One, you will have your home and your family and your job and your status, but you will have them all fully for the first time in your life. Instead of a life of compromise, you will have a life dedicated to the healing of humanity -- which is always and forever based in the healing of your own soul.
Those who wish to oppose you in this transformation -- and for the present, at least, we have to assume that there will be those that try to oppose you -- will find that their words and actions have less and less of an impact on you as you become more and more filled with the pure joy of alignment with the One.

"Our recent experience is that as we become more successful, as we teach more people to align with their true hearts desire to realize the Eternal One, the violence of the frustrated ego in others that do not so desire to structure full enlightenment screams more loudly."

"The absurd and bizarre stories about the teaching of enlightenment and spirituality and the enlightened increase in volume and ferocity as we accomplish our task to heal the Earth."


This was predicted and understandable; if it is inevitable or not remains to be seen. The enlightened and the teachers of enlightenment continue, one-pointedly, marching to the goal; those who wish to join them in the noblest of tasks will do so with joy and harmony; those that do not will go their own way, cursing them perhaps as they walk out the door.

"How dare they offer to help them break attachments and be free? How dare they offer an alternative to their painful and short lives!!"

Someone learned a statistic from an MD, a Dr, Joel Wallach: the average life expectancy of an MD in the U.S. is 58 years. The average life expectancy of an aspirant of enlightenment in Perpetual Conscious awareness of the ONE is more than six times that. The average life expectancy of an enlightened individual in Unity is incalculable in modern standards.

The ego worships allopathic medicine as God. This is true because modern medicine will kill you if you practice it religiously.
The Ego fears and hates enlightenment because it will kill the Ego if you practice it correctly.

Life is supremely simple, but people tend to make it complicated. A life of compromise leads to death, quickly, painfully.
A life dedicated to Truth leads to Eternal Freedom.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/09/08 03:22 PM

THE POWER OF NOW, IN SUMMARY
On the front page, just before the contents of his book, The Power of NOW--a Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment,first published in 1999, Eckhart Tolle has this astounding statement all by itself:

You are here to enable the divine
purpose of the universe to unfold.
This is how important you are.

================================
Everybody: Comments anyone! What does this mean to you and what questions come to mind (psyche)? Or should that be spirit (pneuma)?

One of the first questions that comes to my psyche/pneuma is: Who gets to decide what the purpose is?

Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/09/08 04:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking


The first question that come to my psyche/pneuma is: Do each of us decide what the purpose is?


No. Purpose is already established. We only need awaken to it.


----------------OVERVIEW:COSMIC PERSPECTIVE--------------------

Where does one begin to define the tradition of enlightenment?

For those who have been involved in the last 2000 years and have taught with the information left by one of their brothers, they hold that the original teachings of Jesus were not a belief
system at all, but rather a mechanical series of techniques to transform human life into a constant perception and knowing of the perfection of divinity within every human heart.

What is the source or goal of human life? The mind in the waking state is filled with opposing thoughts.

Is the perfection of life to be found after death? Is Heaven a far-off state, one to be attained by living a “good” life, or is it something that is at hand -- a reality that can be attained here and now, an ascended reality that is possible to be achieved in the present?

Is it possible to live an ideal, Heavenly life in this world? Is it possible to live every moment in an upward-directed, ascending mode, in which every thought, word and deed is filled with bliss and love and life?
Can individual life become ideal? Can it be completely healed of the pain of past loss and faulty belief?

Logically, it is impossible to heal individual life if the world is not healed. No one is isolated from the rest of humanity; all are woven together in a tapestry of energy and synergy in which the lives and actions of one reflect in all others. If one person suffers, all suffer -- at least to some extent.

Recognizing this, the ancients formulated a lofty ideal, perhaps best expressed as the Boddhisattva pledge in Buddhism -- “I will not leave this world until all are enlightened.” Such commitment is enshrined in these words. Such love.
But are they practical?
Is it even possible to heal the Earth? If everyone in the entire world must be healed for our individual lives to be ideal, how could it ever happen? Is this not clearly an impossible task for any one being to accomplish? And yet if we desire the impossible, do we desire alone?

Many of our greatest throughout history have spoken of a New World, a coming time in which all the problems of life have been
solved or Ascended, in which all of humanity unites in seeking the highest and best for everyone.

Lofty visions? Surely, but are they also practical? Can they be attained? Or were our spiritual leaders and visionaries speaking only to inspire us to be better?
Do we any longer have a choice? Perhaps it seemed that we did before our modern times, perhaps in previous ages we could delegate some few of us to focus on healing everyone through religion or mysticism or science, but no longer. Even a cursory look at the state of the world leads to the inescapable conclusion that we no longer have a choice. Heal the world we must, else it and we fail to survive.

We as a species have created an imbalance on Earth that could in the space of a few days or hours result in the end of our race or the end of our world or both. Is there hope for us? Do we have allies in this healing process? Do the Laws of Nature favor our healing or our elimination? Let’s look at the
nature of the world and see if there is any hope.

The world is always changing. The Universe is in a constant state of flux. It may have periods of greater or lesser stability, or areas where change seems slight or rare, but these are only temporary realities.
The mightiest mountains are worn down to foothills; the oceans rise up and turn into dry land; even the continents slip around on the Earth’s molten core like ice on a hot tin stove.
One day the Sun itself will die; eventually this galaxy will be extinct, filled with the hollow memories of burned out stars.
The dinosaurs ruled the Earth for a great many more million years than the present human race is supposed to have existed, but where are they now? Life is change.
Our world is changing, and ever more rapidly. There are those who take this as evidence that this is not an ideal world, it was not created by perfection or it is not maintained in perfection. This conclusion seems rock solid. But is it? Is this not saying that there is a part of space or time where the Infinite Perfection of the Absolute ONE is not found? If that is so, then the Infinite is not Omnipresent, or is opposed
by a nearly Omnipotent destructive power that seeks to undermine the intent of Infinity. Or perhaps it is all truly random, there is no underlying order; all thought of Absolute harmony is a myth, created by hopeful people with little common sense.

This kind of thinking denies both logic and experience, as will become clear as we proceed with this short composition. There is another way to view this world; there is another way to view all of life.
Change appears to be either constructive or destructive. There seem to be two great natural forces at work in our Universe -- evolution and devolution. But on closer examination, every motion of devolution is not without purpose, for it opens the pathway for more and greater evolution. It is only when the bud is destroyed that the flower can emerge. It is only when the child dies that the adult is born.
The combined working of these two infinitely opposed forces is all-powerful in the relative cosmos, and is certainly brilliantly and wise. Some have considered it mindless, but even a cursory look at the magnificent complexity of any aspect of our Universe makes such a conclusion seem extremely naive. A
thousand billion galaxies each with an average of two hundred billion stars? Fifty trillion cells in every human body all working together in perfect harmony? Such wisdom there is in Nature, such brilliance.

Natural laws certainly seem all-powerful and all-knowing from our human perspective, do they not?
So, if there are Omnipotent and Omniscient forces at work in our Universe, why do they so often handle our lives in such a destructive manner? Aren’t we often crushed by oppressive weights beyond our ability to control? Which of us has not from time to time thought our lives are about as important to the
higher powers of Nature as are the insects on our windshields?

The universal forces don’t seem to have much regard for the little human lives on our planet, do they?

Appearance is a wonderful magician, an extraordinary deceiver, capable of convincing our hearts and minds of the strangest lies. How often do we choose our clothes, houses, jobs by the most superficial standards? And our friends and mates as well. Is this bad? Not necessarily. Compromising integrity
doesn’t make a whole lot of difference if there is no absolute standard.

If we have never seen the Sun, choosing between which star we wish to guide us is not so important. This doesn’t mean we might not believe it important and fight with all our might to defend the supremacy of our individually chosen star.
We might go to war defending the importance of Sirius, the brightest; we might say that any who refuse to follow the sure council of Polaris, the steadiest, are doomed to hell and Infinite torture; we might create entire philosophies on the wondrous counsel offered by the most glorious constellation, Orion -- but what happens to our beliefs and philosophies based on starlight when the Sun rises?
The point is that if we attempt to apply the standards of sensual perception in an attempt to understand our position and role in the Universe, we will necessarily fall far short of learning anything of much importance.

How to align our understanding with the Cosmic and Universal Forces instead of with the gross material world reported to us by our senses is the whole purpose of inner growth.
Cosmic Intelligence is one name for that Force which pushes our individual lives and our world toward perfection. It is the Source of the harmony between the opposing natural laws that causes all of life to progress, in spite of the appearances on the surface.
According to the enlightened/awakened, our only responsibility
here on Earth is to make sure that we are not working against Cosmic Intelligence, either consciously or unconsciously
.
Posted by: lehe

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours... - 10/09/08 04:46 PM

How funny that we all want God to confront our ego on the egos terms, instead of entering our spirit realm where we are always in constant communion with God.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/09/08 09:47 PM

lehe, I think this is why Tolle speaks of what I call GOD as "Being", not as "a being". This why I prefer to use the acronym GOD. It gets me away from using the proper noun, God, as if he is some kind of a human-like "one" to whom I can point.

Tolle speaks of the urgent "task of the transformation of human consciousness". As enablers, we have the enjoyable and important role of becoming more and more conscious and using this consciousnesses to observe the universe in the process of unfolding, or evolving, now.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/09/08 10:31 PM

Hey TT,
What is the source or goal of human Life?
Our source was a seed of divinity (intelligence) and our goal is to grow into divinity.
Death is the end of Life, the force returns to the source.
Heaven is a fantasy of Life, and due to the creative power of 'one', Life can attain and ascend to in the future.
It is not possible to live an ideal heavenly Life in this world, here and now. Unless you could lie to yourself and that would kinda blow your heavenly. We are one.
Yes it is possible to heal (change) the Human of Earth. It can happen with the accomplishment of the basic goal of all Religion and Philosophy, Unity.

peace & Love
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/09/08 10:40 PM

Hey again,

I expected to be questioned about ID when I clicked submit. I apologize for being so blunt and not entering the discussion more cordially.
My name is Tinker and I'm going to save the world. Would you help me please?

peace & Love
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/09/08 11:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Hey TT,
What is the source or goal of human Life?

The absolute ONE.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous

Our source was a seed of divinity (intelligence) and our goal is to grow into divinity.

Our source is the absolute. Intelligence which is also divinity creates through the movement of intelligence. What is created from divinity is divine in nature. Our goal as beings that experience ourselves as other than divine is to return to our heritage.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous

Death is the end of Life, the force returns to the source.

Death is an illusion, we never left our source. Life of the ego is dual in nature and perceives its information of identity through the duality of life and death.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous

Heaven is a fantasy of Life, and due to the creative power of 'one', Life can attain and ascend to in the future.

Heaven is the realm of consciousness within the dual world and also in its seat of power in spirit, living with one foot in both worlds. Time is a construct of duality, used to facilitate the experience of progression or evolution. The future never really comes, there is only NOW. The past, present and future are all NOW.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous

It is not possible to live an ideal heavenly Life in this world, here and now. Unless you could lie to yourself and that would kinda blow your heavenly. We are one.

It is not possible for the ego.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous

Yes it is possible to heal (change) the Human of Earth. It can happen with the accomplishment of the basic goal of all Religion and Philosophy, Unity.

That is correct.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous

Hey again,

I expected to be questioned about ID when I clicked submit. I apologize for being so blunt and not entering the discussion more cordially.
My name is Tinker and I'm going to save the world. Would you help me please?

How would you like me to help you?

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/09/08 11:35 PM

The absolute one and divinity are the same thing to me.

The absolute one (relative to our galaxy) began as a single impulse, action, spark or whatever and is now the direct result of action/reaction, Yin/Yang or simply progress from that origin.

Life here and now is real.
Death is the end of the individual manifestation.
I have no ego that needs to survive. I really do have a big thing for Life though. I plan on keeping it.

Realm of consciousness and fantasy of Life are the same to me.

You started off real good helping me already. I hope we can continue finding common ground. I know how to do the Unity thing.

peace & Love
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 01:31 AM

www.BLTR.org

peace & Love
Tinker
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 02:16 AM

Quote:
I’ve been on this BLitTeR mission for four years now and not one person will accept me and my mission.

Got this off of your website under the heading of "Acknowledge the Feeling"

Do you know surrender?
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 04:49 AM

TT wrote:
That is correct.....

....in regard to the basic goal of religion and philosophy equalling unity.

Whilst you may agree with Anonymous (aka Tinker) his/her statement is a statement of belief or perhaps of faith. It is not a statement which can be proven to be correct. You (TT) agree with it, and that is fine, in your mind it is correct, it concurs with your personal outlook . To others (eg. me) it is not "correct". It is a strongly held belief, or maybe an attractive tenet of faith, but it is not indisputably right, or correct.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 07:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
TT wrote:
That is correct.....

....in regard to the basic goal of religion and philosophy equalling unity.

Whilst you may agree with Anonymous (aka Tinker) his/her statement is a statement of belief or perhaps of faith. It is not a statement which can be proven to be correct. You (TT) agree with it, and that is fine, in your mind it is correct, it concurs with your personal outlook . To others (eg. me) it is not "correct". It is a strongly held belief, or maybe an attractive tenet of faith, but it is not indisputably right, or correct.

Anything can be disputed, but then that doesn't mean truth isn't truth. It just means that someone doesn't agree with something.
Generally speaking our experiences when sense driven do not always match the environment and reality.
The scenario of a crime scene might be one that could represent an example. A man assaults someone and witnesses tell different stories according to the way they perceive the same incident.
Who tells the right story, the witnesses or the person having the experience of the assault?
Often in the stress that occurs when in a heightened state of anxiety clarity of mind can be compromised.
Even when someone gets attached to a situation and becomes emotionally charged it takes someone who is less invested in the event to see clearly. This is the reason so many people who fight with each other seek mediators who have a more objective stance.

In the expansion of consciousness the mind is seated in still objectivity, or the experience of the now.

Because we are all interconnected we can feel another when there is nothing in the way. This is easily observed in relationships where we become familiar with our family members. A loved one comes home feeling sad and without saying anything we have an acute awareness of their feelings.
This is because we are connected to each other. Science has discovered that the cells in our body communicate through the chemical and mechanical connectivity of neuropeptides and receiver sites built within the cellular structure. Our cells talk to each other. We are walking cellular universes that have the ability to communicate. When one cell becomes sick they all know about it.

At the human level we have a different conscious ability to be self aware. We can consume ourselves with beliefs and ideas based on the emotional stresses and attachments to what the ego identifies as real or not real.
For the waking state human who is more subjective in their conscious awareness all reality comes from what has been learned and accepted. This learning and subjectivity often cuts one off from another in the ignoring of thoughts and feelings that are pushed out and away from the environment of the nest from birth to adulthood. We learn to accept and not accept.
What we think is real is taught to us and very few are allowed to develop their own experience or ideas of life through self discovery because we have been influenced by our parents, and their parents, and theirs before them and so on.
Peer groups created through democratic process of psychological bonding in like experiences give us a false sense of security and even authority of these things we accept from the assumed authority of reality that is our parents our peers, our public education system which is at least 10 years behind the times and nowadays the very loud majority influence of the politically swayed media.

Very few have developed the intuitive open mind they were born with which is like the innocence of a child. Instead the average adult has narrowed possibility to the realm of belief and social idealization.
Our science is based on theory, and the application of tools and theory to verify what we believe is real within the known beliefs of our world and the ideals of our current state of evolution, but one thing always remains the same within the sensory world and science still engages itself in pursuit of any and all knowledge of it. The force behind creation and destruction that is within the universe.

It has always been available for experience, and through traditional methods of the mastery of it and surrender to it, passed from generation to generation through the written and spoken word to those who could preserve its knowledge and live within its natural state of human being, so that it can continue to remain available for those who are ready to discover it themselves.

It remains regardless of belief, it is experienced no matter what kind of beliefs one has, and it has been experienced by people of all social, political, and religious practice, and by every race on this planet in all ages of time and in all ages of physical human growth.

My agreement is not with the other persons belief, it is with my own experience of the absolute and Unity with the absolute in all things as both the source and goal of life.

Because it is not your belief or experience has little to do with it being real or not.

I didn't acknowledge whether it was Tinkers belief or experience, but you can still place yourself in this conversation as an authority to this and it won't really validate whether it is just a belief or actual experience. You can only attempt to validate in yourself whether you have an experience or belief that can be compared to the subject at hand by speaking of your own experiences.

For someone who knows less than you, you may be a lighthouse for that person and influence their thinking to create agreement.
For those that live by agreement and democratic truth, any invasion or threat to personal ideals can be disturbing. Such is not a very expanded or free way of living in this limited state of consciousness.
This type of conscious awareness stands by an ideal until something better comes along, and without the direct experience of something greater it is difficult to be open to anything else.

There is a trick people have used in the jungle to catch monkeys. They put a banana in a jar, and when the monkey puts their hand in the jar to try and get it out they wrap their fist around the fruit which is then too big to pull through the opening. Wanting the fruit so badly the monkey will not let go and as the hunter approaches the monkey the jar which is attached to a tree anchors the monkey in one place and the monkey loses its life because it will not let go of the fruit.

This is the state of mind of most humans in the waking state, where their ego wraps itself around belief and ideals that it will not let go of. It will hold onto the idea and identity of physical mortality until it dies, never opening the mind to the greater experience of the absolute Self within because it is too self absorbed in what it thinks is real on the outside, projected from belief.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 09:16 PM

Sir, TT,

That four years has passed seven now,I have learned 'it' can't be pushed.
I know surrender. That is what opened the door to the knowledge that I have of the direction of Society.
After thirty years of aggressively seeking to isolate the common cause of all the world's problems,surrender.
All that I believed in and all of the teachings that I had studied failed to reconcile the dilemma of my Life's circumstance. Why?
I opened up, and was filled up.

peace & Love

PS Rev, I'm a 56 years lived man.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 09:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Sir, TT,

That four years has passed seven now,I have learned 'it' can't be pushed.
I know surrender. That is what opened the door to the knowledge that I have of the direction of Society.
After thirty years of aggressively seeking to isolate the common cause of all the world's problems,surrender.
All that I believed in and all of the teachings that I had studied failed to reconcile the dilemma of my Life's circumstance. Why?
I opened up, and was filled up.


Just a suggestion regarding your website but you might want to bring the attention to what is pertinent rather than being about you.
Also, one has to continually empty their cup before more can come.
There is no such thing as spirit being full.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 10:17 PM


I am very familiar with the feeling that you express with your signature. I am also very familiar with the method of the closed mind that will not address the subject being presented but instead attack the presenter. "Kill the messenger"

The home page of the site does deal explicitly with the idea of "teaching the world a word". You skiped right over that and went to find some facet of me personally that you could denigrate.

Your reaction is normal. The cause is a 'thing' in the mind that rejects 'new knowledge'. Galileo and Einstein both suffered abuses because of this 'thing'. Their truths are still true.

peace & Love
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 10:24 PM

I use Galileo and Einstein as reference because their revelations are on the same line as mine, potential.
Galileo saw the Macro.
Einstein saw the micro.
I see here and now and what can be if we make this connection in the minds of mankind.

peace & Love
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 10:36 PM

PS

I drink from the cup constantly, would you like some?

peace & Love smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 11:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Anonymous

I am also very familiar with the method of the closed mind that will not address the subject being presented but instead attack the presenter. "Kill the messenger"

Yes that was obvious, which is why I said not to make it about you.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous

The home page of the site does deal explicitly with the idea of "teaching the world a word". You skiped right over that and went to find some facet of me personally that you could denigrate.

No that would be the idea created from separation rather than Unity. I couldn't possibly take anything from you that isn't a part of you.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous

I use Galileo and Einstein as reference because their revelations are on the same line as mine, potential.
Galileo saw the Macro.
Einstein saw the micro.
I see here and now and what can be if we make this connection in the minds of mankind.

So the potential in the here and now was a reaction and an attack toward you and your message....

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
PS

I drink from the cup constantly, would you like some?

Not from that cup...no thank you very much.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 11:07 PM

one more thing

If you want to get down on me, go down that reading list to "Outlaw" and pick one of my five felony convictions.

peace & Love
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/10/08 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
one more thing

If you want to get down on me, go down that reading list to "Outlaw" and pick one of my five felony convictions.

peace & Love

You like making it about you...
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/11/08 01:24 AM

Sir, you made it about me and you're still running scared from the information presented.

peace & Love
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/11/08 01:32 AM

Can you control your natural reaction to disregard "new knowledge" long enough to consider and comment on the idea of establishing a common point of understanding amongst mankind.

peace & Love
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/11/08 02:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Can you control your natural reaction to disregard "new knowledge" long enough to consider and comment on the idea of establishing a common point of understanding amongst mankind.

peace & Love

That common point is not new, it is as old as time itself. People come up with new ways to make it new through their personal experiences and labels.

When you take the personal out, it becomes universal
And what is true for one is true for all in the universal.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/11/08 02:49 AM

There is, and probably never will be, such a thing as a 'common point of understanding amongst mankind'. As we each approach the truth through our own understanding the best we can achieve is an acknowledgement of our differences as well as our agreements. What we need to do is to learn to work within those parameters, allowing for difference and limitations of the individual. We have to aim not for victory for our point of view, but for consensus and cooperation in order to progress.

Is there any such thing as absolute truth?--- Of course there is. I can prove a scientific fact such as the world is a round ball. However I can never prove that there is no god. I don't think there is--- but I cannot prove that. There is a difference between proof and belief. We are all entitled to believe what we may, but it is necessary sometimes to allow other ideas to be expressed, considered and adopted. Just as we cannot claim our own spiritual ideas to be "correct" we cannot state that other people's beliefs are "wrong". To do so would surely be the epitome of ego driven thinking.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/11/08 03:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
There is, and probably never will be, such a thing as a 'common point of understanding amongst mankind'.

OF course there is, it exists in the realm that is impervious to belief.
Originally Posted By: Ellis
As we each approach the truth through our own understanding the best we can achieve is an acknowledgement of our differences as well as our agreements.

That would be within the beliefs that are created on the way to truth. Until one reaches the Truth one can only speculate within their ideals and conflicts of interest
Originally Posted By: Ellis
What we need to do is to learn to work within those parameters, allowing for difference and limitations of the individual. We have to aim not for victory for our point of view, but for consensus and cooperation in order to progress.
What will eventually happen in the expansion of consciousness is to rise above these parameters of personality and egoic idealization, that will always be searching for a way to get along with those in different stages of intellectual and spiritual growth.
Originally Posted By: Ellis

Is there any such thing as absolute truth?--- Of course there is. I can prove a scientific fact such as the world is a round ball. However I can never prove that there is no god. I don't think there is--- but I cannot prove that. There is a difference between proof and belief. We are all entitled to believe what we may, but it is necessary sometimes to allow other ideas to be expressed, considered and adopted. Just as we cannot claim our own spiritual ideas to be "correct" we cannot state that other people's beliefs are "wrong". To do so would surely be the epitome of ego driven thinking.

Right and wrong live in the realm of judgment. God does not make such judgments against growing children, but just as an adult knows the difference in being a child or an adult, so does consciousness recognize the difference between relative truths and absolute truth.


1 Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Posted by: lehe

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/11/08 05:50 PM

Revlking,
Perfectly put.
Posted by: lehe

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/11/08 05:58 PM

Anonymous, I understand exactly why you ask such a question. The blocks at this junture are strong. You've come a long way. You will be pleased when you breakthrough.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/11/08 07:55 PM

Originally Posted By: lehe
Revlking, Perfectly put.
lehe, I presume you are referring to post #27996 - Thu Oct 09 2008 02:47 PM
Where I spoke of Tolle and his reference to the urgent "task of the transformation of human consciousness".

And what an urgent task it is. Currently, by means of the Family Life Foundation, a small group of us is working with the help of a computer technologist who has come up with a unique system of community building using the Internet.

The goal is the bringing together of any number of positive people who are sincerely interested in having transformed consciousnesses and are willing help in the building of communities of helpful people--locally and otherwise.
Posted by: lehe

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/11/08 09:19 PM

Relvlgking, I would love to be a part of such a group. I am working on my own similar project here in New Mexico. I will look up the foundation you mention. The more the merrier, I always say!
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/14/08 01:12 AM

I. SOLVING THE PROBLEMS
OF THE WORLD
To change your world, change yourself.
To help this world be a better place must certainly be every thinking human’s desire. Our planet is
faced with innumerable problems, physical and spiritual; the attempts of our leaders to solve them seem
neither wholly pathetic nor wholly laudable. They are doing the best they can; even the apparent
exceptions to this rule act positively, given the definitions of reality to which they ascribe. But, as
courageous as the noble attempts to solve Earth’s problems have always been, and as successful as
some of the solutions have proved to be in some limited areas of concern, still the over-all depth, breadth
and intensity of the difficulties facing the world have only increased over the centuries until the existence
of the biosphere and of humanity itself is today swinging in the balance.
It was disastrous for the Carthaginians when the Romans burned Carthage to the ground; it was
certainly unfortunate for the Israelites when Rome razed Jerusalem and sent her people into captivity; it
was devastating to the Native Americans when the Europeans moved westward; but today we seem
determined to destroy the entire world.
It was tragic when the Sahara swallowed the fertile fields of Africa due to human incompetence,
but today we lose a football size field of rain forest every second; every year, an area of rain forest the size
of Pennsylvania is burned and converted to pasture, losing forever not only the wondrous potential
pharmaceuticals growing there in their natural state but simultaneously cutting the throat of the largest
oxygen- producing organism in the world.
We have all enjoyed the benefits of aerosols and cars and air conditioners, but the ozone
deteriorates. It seems that soon being outside anywhere at any time of day will be deadly.
It was a great accomplishment when our miracle drugs dramatically reduced infant deaths, but
today we have well over three hundred million people eeking out lives of barest subsistence without
meeting the needs of minimal nutrition. Three hundred million of our fellow humans are malnourished or
starving today. What did you have for dinner?
Any solution designed to solve any of these problems or the myriad of others facing humanity is
certainly good and should be encouraged. But it is not now and will never be sufficient to address the
problems of the human condition one at a time, or even in groups of related problems at one time. We can
link acid rain, ozone depletion, the ruining of our rivers, lakes and seas with excesses in our technologies,
but the basic issue will remain untouched by any such approach. The reason for this is simple. We can
attempt to solve a vast number of problems, but the solutions will always cause more problems as long as
we do not know the result of our actions. With limited minds, obstacles will continue to mutate and evolve
as do bacteria in response to our latest miracle drug. A host of new and worse difficulties will continue to
arise until the day we change the fundamental error of our thinking.
There is a field next to this house where I’m writing these words. A year ago it was a pasture where
a dozen horses grazed. Today it holds thirty houses; another fifteen are scheduled for completion within
the next six months. From the standpoint of the silent field, this must feel exactly like a cancerous growth.
What utility do these houses have in relation to the land? Where once there was a mutual harmony of
organic life, now there is concrete, asphalt, chaos, death. And yet the new residents living here are
grateful for this relatively cheap housing: for many of these young families, this is their first escape from
apartments into the grand experiment of private ownership. And in another thirty years, this will doubtless
be a quiet, even a sedate neighborhood, with tall, stately oaks and maples lining the streets.
I remember climbing up a huge old stump -- twice as high as I was tall, four times as wide as it was
high -- down the hill from the house where I grew up in. It was in the middle of a forty acre tract
which we called, “The Swamp.” This ground was not particularly swampy, at least not much more than
anything of Seattle, but calling it The Swamp added a certain dark mystery to young children. Fifty years
Solving the Problems of the World
before I entered The Swamp in awe and wonder, there was a magnificent stand of Western red cedar and
Douglas fir there. A hundred years before that, the evergreens were so thick and tall all over Western
Washington that anyone magically transported there from today would think they had wandered into the
most wonderful park on the Earth. What a tragedy from the perspective of the Native Americans! But our
small tragedy when The Swamp was razed and turned into the sterile asphalt of a parking lot and the
plastic and steel of a shopping mall was no less tangible and painful for our childish sensibilities. And yet
the close proximity of the nascent stores was viewed as a Godsend by several senior citizens of our
neighborhood.
I remember looking for an ancestral home with my family when I was nine. We could not find it -- it
was gone, a memory now only, replaced by one more freeway off-ramp. This in the middle of a wheat field! A serious loss, surely -- but those who use the freeway every day to hurry home to their families might disagree.
What exactly is a problem? A great evil from one perspective may prove a blessing from another.
But even if we can find some problems that everyone can agree are definitely problems, it does not follow
that everyone will agree on the solutions. And even if everyone everywhere were to agree on the problems
and the solutions, there is no guarantee that the solutions would work. Even if everyone everywhere
agreed beyond the slightest doubt that the Sun circled the Earth, our planet and our neighbor star would
not be likely to deviate from their orbits. Reality is not democratic! Regardless of how much we would like
everyone to believe in our cherished dream worlds, it doesn’t make them real for anyone other than our
own selves.
Don’t assume I am implying that it is wrong to attempt to solve any and all problems. Everything
that can be done should certainly be done. What I am saying is that our solutions have never worked well
because we as a species have never addressed the one fundamental problem that is causing all the
others. How do we transform our actions so that they have only life-supporting effects?
Until this basic issue is addressed, it will never be possible to solve the myriad difficulties of the
human condition. How can this be done?
ONE IDEAL PERSON
If we look into diversity, we see only diversity. When we look outward through our eyes, we see an
extremely complex and variegated world. Trying to change this outer world is difficult or impossible by
addressing any situation, one at a time. That is why corporations succeed -- a hundred individuals can do
a great deal more than one alone. Even if that one is far more efficient and talented than any other of the
hundred, it is physically impossible for any one person to do a hundred tasks at once.
Thus are hierarchies structured; thus are civilizations created.
The individual employee may have little or no understanding of how his or her part is contributing
to the whole; the private citizen may lack any comprehension of the nature or orderliness of his or her
society, but this does not inhibit the effectiveness of the whole. How does an organization function
smoothly, be it a cow, a company or a country? Each member of the hierarchical structure of the
organization must function well. The health of the organization is determined by the health of its individual
members. This is a universal law, be our conversation about organs and their constituent cells or
civilizations and their constituent citizens. Who can save a heart if its cells are dying? Who can save a
country if its citizens are degenerating?
This may all appear much too simplistic, much too obvious, and yet wholly impossible to change.
“Of course,” you may say, “your point is clear. If we want to solve the world’s problems, we must solve the
problems of the individual. There is nothing novel there. Confucius in ancient China said much the same
thing. ‘When the father is a father and the son a son, when the brother is a brother and the sister a sister,
when the husband is a husband and the wife a wife, then the family is set in order. When the family is set
in order, the village is set in order. When the village is set in order, the nation is set in order. When the
nation is set in order, the world is set in order.’ This is all too obvious. If I am healthy in my body, my mind
and my spirit, then, you imply, my society will be healthy. If I don’t contribute to the world’s problems, then
the world’s problems will cease. But what you offer is just too simplistic. Even if I act perfectly, what of my
brother George? Or my husband Sam? What about my kids? Or Fred down the street? Or the big corporations?
Or the banks and savings and loans? Or the military-industrial complex? Or terrorists? Or whoever
else happens to be on my ‘bad’ list at the moment? They’ll still be damaging the world, just as before. Of
what value, then, your solution? It is impossible to apply this thinking globally.”
Indeed, I must agree with you. The thought of changing everyone on the planet to become ideal, a
person who does nothing to damage either himself/herself or the world in any way, even the slightest, is a
concept that sounds too difficult to achieve in any reasonable amount of time. Even identifying which of
our daily actions are in fact damaging to ourselves or others is a matter for limitless controversy. The
simplest choice presented to each of us at most grocery store check-out counters makes the insoluble
riddles of antiquity seem like child’s play. “Paper or plastic,” the clerk asks us sweetly. What do we reply?
Kill a tree or use a non-renewable, non-biodegradable resource? Which do you choose? Does it matter
to yourself or to your world? Is it even worth considering, or is it a momentary and essentially pointless
diversion?
The root difficulty with the typical waking state of consciousness is that it is impossible to know
anything with certainty. It is not now nor will it ever be possible to know all the effects of an action -- of any
action, even the most basic. So why not live a life of compromise? Everyone sacrifices integrity on the
altar of convenience. Why be any different?
This is the issue that has led many of our philosophers to conclude that there is no Absolute
standard of morality or action. This dilemma has caused many others never to question but to let other
“authority” figures dictate their actions and beliefs. Without an Absolute standard, such leaders may or
may not have anything worthwhile to say; but many of them have at least demonstrated a certain skill in
convincing others to listen to them!
It may seem impossible to change everyone in the world. Fortunately, that is not your
responsibility. It is not your responsibility to change your countrymen, not your neighbors, not your friends,
not even your own family. You have the responsibility to change just one person in the entire Universe!
Do you know who this all-important person is? Do you know who has created and maintains your private
Universe? The good news and the terrible news is exactly the same -- it is you. The one controller of your
life and fate is you, no one other than you. You have made it exactly as you willed. Perhaps your choices
were unconscious until today, perhaps you did not know any better before. But those days are over now.
Since you have done it, you can do it over in any way you choose.
There may be others working to help everyone else change, but that need not be your concern.
You don’t have to see all the plan; you don’t have to understand its whole operation. You don’t even have
to know exactly how your part fits into the whole. It isn’t necessary! All you have to do is live your own part
perfectly and your world will transform around you. That is guaranteed, absolutely guaranteed. If the light
within you is not dark, the shadows will fly from your world.
How impossible a task, saving the world. How possible a task, saving yourself. Cleanse your own
heart and the world’s heart will be cleansed.
The waking state perception of the Universe is completely reversed, upside-down. In the waking
state, we commonly think that our effect is greater when we act outwardly; we think that our actions are
stronger than our words and our words are stronger than our thoughts. Therefore, for example, we do not
speak our resentment but hold it inside, festering, until it erupts in attacks far greater than the original
action we did not take, or until it kills us. This way of living is backwards, it is destructive, it cures nothing
and complicates everything.
One human’s thoughts can change a world. To be healed, the world does need one Ideal Person.
This person has already been born, this person has a name and a personal history. The birthdate of this
person is yours, the personal history is yours, this person’s name is yours. This Ideal Person is you.
We affect more than we can possibly know. With every mood, every thought, every word, every
gesture, we change our lives and our Universe.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/14/08 03:16 AM

Quote:
Relvlgking, I would love to be a part of such a group. I am working on my own similar project here in New Mexico. I will look up the foundation you mention. The more the merrier, I always say!
lehe, I am sure that you are aware that your very desire to be part of the concept of collaborative and creative community building (CCCB) makes you a part of the process, automatically. Now, let us agree to work on ways and means of getting this project on the road.

Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/14/08 05:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I am sure that you are aware that your very desire to be part of the concept of collaborative and creative community building (CCCB) makes you a part of the process, automatically.

There are almost 7 billion people who desire to be part of a collaborative and creative community building and they ARE part of the process.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Now, let us agree to work on ways and means of getting this project on the road.

Now, we are just talking politics rather than true spirituality.
Posted by: lehe

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/14/08 06:58 PM

revelgking, are you speaking about a specific project or are you generalizing about any project designed to bring others together for a higher good?

TT, it sounds like we are all on a similar if not same page.
your words,

" Therefore, for example, we do not
speak our resentment but hold it inside, festering, until it erupts in attacks far greater than the original
action we did not take, or until it kills us. This way of living is backwards, it is destructive, it cures nothing"

are so true to everything I exerience personally and clinically. We humans are finding new and amazing functions of "festering emotions", functions that transcend the usual toxic expression or suppression, niether of which is wholly transformational by themselves.

All true healing methods intercept and transform the toxicity characteristic of emotions in one way or another, and all effective healing methods require siccinct mental surrender of our usual fearful control grip. The differences in the healing methods is only the means by which they convince others to momentarily surrender that control and let the transformation take place. I find that this is where all differences are the same.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/14/08 10:21 PM

Originally Posted By: lehe


All true healing methods intercept and transform the toxicity characteristic of emotions in one way or another, and all effective healing methods require siccinct mental surrender of our usual fearful control grip. The differences in the healing methods is only the means by which they convince others to momentarily surrender that control and let the transformation take place. I find that this is where all differences are the same.

In trying to surrender anything without something greater to turn towards there will always remain the difficulty that arises in the differences of opinion.
If the greater experience of Self is universal so that it resonates equally within each individual there can be not only the experience of unity but the awareness of the underlying principle which lives regardless of the personal experience.
It is only in that absolute which underlies the personal that everything is ONE, without any qualities of measure that the ego seeks so desperately to make its system of self(Ego)measure work.

If one lives in a room that is dark and full of shadows to try and force the mind to give up the shadows without knowing anything but shadows only stresses the mind and body. If you turn on the light and the shadows no longer exist the mind does not struggle in and amongst the self evident truth that exists in the clear vision of reality.

Transformation is simple enough if one has the tools to take the mind inward, beyond the illusions of the ego that are the shadows of belief and into the light of the ONE underlying reality that is truth.
There are many roads, not all of which lead to the same place, and some are more convoluted in their pathways that take one here and there to possibly in some lifetime lead one to the Truth. And then there are those which are more direct in their approach.
The enlightened have always maintained that the wheel does not have to reinvented by each individual or by each successive generation. One person who has found the direct path opens that path for all always. That is how intimately we are all connected.

Some say there are two paths, one being the Path of the Sages and one being the path of the Gods. The path of the Gods is the path of enjoyment, or the pleasing approach to the senses. Because there is so much to enjoy in life it is maintained that as long as we want to enjoy life we should. This is the freedom of choice that is given to man as the image of God, or free will.
The Path of the Sages is a path that takes the mind beyond the sense oriented addictions that the ego attaches itself to to go directly to its source. It is much more threatening to the ego.

In the story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of life, the Tree represents the human nervous system. The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil the human nervous system attached to the sensory images and experiences that give the ego its seat of power and the illusions of duality or good experiences and bad experiences.
The Adam or reasoning principle of the male half of the brain reasons according to logic while the Eve or love principle, the feminine half of the brain works with intuition. When they work together they support each other.
The eve principal becomes the muse to reason, and logic becomes a grounding principal to intuition which without logic becomes irrational and impulsively driven by emotional subjectivity. When they become dominant one over the other the Adam principle becomes destructive and the Eve principle ungrounded and impulsive.
Each of us as individuals have these two principles working within the left and right hemispheres of the brain. In the waking state of consciousness which is known as different from dreaming and sleeping states of consciousness the left and right hemispheres can be measured on an EEG and seen as chaotic and differing in their activity and function.
In deep meditation or as Abraham Maslow noted when he studied what is called the "peak experience" the left and right hemispheres of the brain come into perfect alignment, and brain wave patterns when measured by connecting leads to the parietal and occipital lobes of the brain show themselves to be cohesive rather than chaotic.
Given such a tool that can recreate this experience one only need to get out of the way and allow the experience of deep cohesive intellectual and physical resonance take the awareness beyond the conflicting boundaries of separation and difference to immerse ones self in a more objective point of life.
When the mind is situated in a more objectively aware and still point of reference, illusions which create stress within the nervous system do not cling to the nervous system, rather they pass through as energy without the ego qualifying the energy and reacting to it.
One becomes observant of emotions rather than being ruled by them or influenced by them. And as they refine their intellect and intuitive subtle senses, emotional content is not owned. Because or our connection to the collective consciousness it becomes apparent that emotional content is given to qualify the experience of the manifest and often clouds the individual experience of reality. When one becomes objective they become a witness to emotions and can see how they have become attached to limits of belief and limits of objectivity that block clear vision and understanding.

Ultimately programs that relieve the nervous system temporarily can cause some amount of healing but if the nervous system is returned to its normal Eden like state of being or the awareness is not able to stabilize itself within the Truth of reality and remain objective, it slowly returns to habit by engaging itself within limited boundaries of belief and idealism that becomes the apple of duality or the ego. Our emotions lead us back to judgment and false discernment between Truth absolute, and truth contained within relative beliefs of the ego.

In one sense the discovery of Truth which is built within the natural laws of human free will and reality are not new because Truth remains truth whether newly discovered or buried under ancient superstitious ritual of egoic activity for countless lifetimes.
There is a saying that if something can be thought of it can be realized for our consciousness becomes aware of those things that can be brought into direct experience when the time is right and the awareness is sharp enough to keep from suppressing energy and to allow it to come forth into manifestation.
As the intellect refines itself and the nervous system is freed from the illusions of egoic beliefs and fear that are separation from God or the One absolute, Energy is transformed and transmuted easily and effortlessly by desire.

There are no limits to the human condition other than those that are self imposed. We cannot heal anyone until we are healed ourselves. Only then can we find the perfection in all choices and all reflections of the absolute One.

All True methods whether labeled as new or Ancient are really the same path to the absolute. If the method is real it automatically draws the awareness toward it like a flame attracts a moth, one becomes willing to give up illusion for truth or ego for Self.
No amount of cajoling or convincing can force one to make that choice, it comes freely when they have had enough contrast to be able to understand the difference between illusion and reality.
Until then one can only patiently embrace the choices that create suffering in another as the marvelous workings of God in action.

So when it comes to speaking of moral, spiritual and ethical values, the words could create the illusion of similar subject matter but the depth of spiritual awareness or lack of it in those subjects create interpretive resonances to the page that contains the subject matter.
We all stand on the same planet but we hardly approach life on it in the same way. So it would be foolish to assume everyone speaking of spirituality is similarly on the same page and moving in the same direction.

Consciousness recognizes consciousness, and a clear nervous system is much more cognizant of reality than one that is cluttered with emotional judgment based on superstition and illusions of the ego.
Posted by: lehe

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/15/08 07:21 PM

Well, I understand TT to mean that his personal agenda is to keep you on the defense while his personal belief is that he is a genius. Once he relinquishes his attachement to those, true objectivity will resume.

BTW, I think everyone here is a genius.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/16/08 12:23 AM

Originally Posted By: lehe
Well, I understand TT to mean that his personal agenda is to keep you on the defense while his personal belief is that he is a genius. Once he relinquishes his attachement to those, true objectivity will resume.

BTW, I think everyone here is a genius.

When true genius dawns in everyone, the context of what I wrote would not be misunderstood by you, or anyone else.
All agenda's will be recognized as illusion and creation returned to its creator.

Generally speaking, the only thing that would keep someone on the defense is when the ego is protecting itself from something that threatens it. (Ego always plays the victim to what ails it)

Anyone living in the present moment embraces everything as the creation of God.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/16/08 03:23 PM

lehe, well said!
BTW, if God created everything, did he also create geniuses? Or is it genii?

What about fools (empty heads)? Did he also create fools to be suffered, gladly (Oscar Wilde)? laugh
As one of the genii, smile --definitely no victim--IMO, GOD is and in creation, and in and through us.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/16/08 04:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking


What about fools (empty heads)? Did he also create fools to be suffered, gladly (Oscar Wilde)? laugh


Is there some place God is not?

When a great master says, "I and my Father are one" there is no separation between the Father and the Son. What the Father has created the Son has created.
That of course is the Unity of Christ Consciousness.

With the Ego there is separation of the unmanifest and the manifest.
The other, (the fool and the genius) as the object is not recognized as the Self but as a part of a fragmented God which is everywhere, in everything, thru everything. This intellectual approach is the necessary predecessor to the experience of unity, (sort of like diapers are the training wheels to understanding the evacuation of waste in the human body for a child wink ).

One day, God came walking through the world to see how his children were faring. He came upon
an old ascetic who had spent his entire adult life in severe bodily mortification and forceful mental disciplines.
The ascetic had gained a certain degree of clarity of his senses from his prolonged practice and
realized that the man casually walking by his cave was fully established in awareness of the inner Divine
Self. Painfully unwinding his body from his rigid posture, the ascetic bowed before God and said, “Great-
Souled One! I perceive you are an illumined master. Pray tell me, honorable sir, how long it will be before I
realize my inner Divine Nature?”
God smiled warmly and laughingly replied, “You are doing well, my son! At your present rate of
progress, you will realize your inner Divine Self with just one more lifetime of similar effort.”
The ascetic, terrified, in shock, cried, “Another lifetime of this horror? How can I endure this
boredom, this agony, this pain for another day, let alone another lifetime! How horrible! You have cursed
me this day! Begone from this place, you imposter! Never would I believe such as you.”
God smiled lovingly at him and walked on. Soon He came upon an idiot splashing in the river,
laughing and singing. This man’s primary activity every day was to cry out, “God! How I love God! God! I
love God! God!” This foolish one never took the slightest care for his physical needs, never cared if he
were fed, clothed, housed. He never noticed if he were clean or dirty, hot or cold, wet or dry. He might
have been locked up in a padded cell in our modern age, but in those days, people saw that he was
harmless and therefore tolerated him and occasionally gave him a crust of bread or some old, half-rotten
fruits or vegetables to eat.
This idiot was attracted by the radiance of this handsome stranger, came up out of the water,
bowed before him and said, “How wonderful! God has sent by a Great-Souled One. I have been enjoying
myself so much of late I had nearly forgotten I have a goal. I began my quest to realize enlightenment long
ago but of late have become distracted by this constant joy welling up inside. Seeing you just now
reminded me of my journey and I was wondering if you could tell me how long it will be before I realize my
inner Divine Nature?”
God smiled warmly and laughingly replied, “You are doing well, my son! At your present rate of
progress, you will realize your inner Divine Self with just seventy more lifetimes of similar effort.”
“Seventy lifetimes of similar effort!” cried the idiot with perfect joy. “How wonderful! What a flawless
boon, you have today bestowed upon me, Great Lord!” The idiot was so filled with joy at the prospect of
another seventy lifetimes of such bliss that the last doubt fled from his mind; his last question melted into
the joy that was his life; his ignorance was irrevocably crushed; he attained the highest state of enlightenment
instantly.


Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
“Life is but an empty dream!”
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.
Life is real! life is earnest!
and the grave is not its goal.
“To dust thou art to dust returneth”
was not spoken of the soul.
In the world’s broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!
Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time.
-- Longfellow
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/17/08 10:24 PM

TT&orJO?: Thanks for reminding me--idiot that I am--of the poem of Longfellow, which over the years, I used in my sermons, more than once.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/18/08 12:51 AM

I think we all leave metaphorical 'footprints on the sands of time' --- or at least survive in the memories of others, and perhaps some of our elements are returned to the universe. Is that eternal life as it is understood by those who believe in that concept? I don't believe so. I think that there is no consciousness after death, no heaven, no reincarnation, just death. However I also think that being alive is in itself important and when we eventually die we can hope that those who knew us will miss us and be sorry that we have gone - and remember us with happiness now and then.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/18/08 03:35 AM

Ellis says
Quote:
I don't believe so. I think that there is no consciousness after death, no heaven, no reincarnation, just death.
OK, Ellis, I accept, with respect, that it is your right to be a true atheist and to believe in that which makes you truly happy. So let it be! Be happy.

Interestingly, you do add:
Quote:
However, I also think that being alive is, in itself, important and when we eventually die we can hope that those who knew us will miss us and be sorry that we have gone - and remember us with happiness now and then.
Ellis, your comments pose several questions:

1. What if you lived the life of a good hermit? Who would be around to remember you?

2. What if you died a criminal? Who would care to remember you?

3. If for you, death is the end of your personal consciousness, why would you have any care as to who remembers you? Or not?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/18/08 04:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
I think we all leave metaphorical 'footprints on the sands of time' --- or at least survive in the memories of others, and perhaps some of our elements are returned to the universe. Is that eternal life as it is understood by those who believe in that concept? I don't believe so.
Eternal life is the continuance of awareness that is universal consciousness which exists regardless of human expiration. From a limited standpoint the ego sees and experiences itself only in the physical boundaries that exist between the birth and death of the human body. The universe and the life within it is much greater than the ego and its limits of illusory manipulation and control that ends in physical death.

The footprints that one leaves on the sands of time are those that are in tune with universal mind. Those that create pathways of conscious awareness in all of mankind.
Memories fade and become distorted, but Truth remains eternal and when one finds and lives from eternal truth they leave markers like breadcrumbs on a living pathway for others to follow.
Jesus was such a person as was Buddha and many other conscious human beings.
It doesn't matter if you have conscious contact with humans to leave such a footprint. You only have to connect with the underlying principle that is the source of humanity.
It leaves an imprint in the collective consciousness which is indelible, but invisible to the ego which creates illusory standards of measure that are constantly changing according to the fragmented pictures created from the myriad of subjective personalities.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/18/08 05:46 AM

Rev- that is how I myself wish to be remembered. Others may choose differently. And here are some further answers---

a) If I were a 'good' hermit then I would have chosen to isiolate myself from humanity and so would be OK with noone remembering me, in fact I would be happy (in my hermity way).

b) Criminals have people who love them- they may not LIKE the crim much, because I think one can choose whether to like someone or not, but love--- well that's a different story.

c) I have no idea. Odd isn't it? Probably ego of a different sort to the one TT talks about... I am very important to me!

TT- I did remark that they were metaphorical footprints. I like that poem. In spite of the mention of the soul it is a very hopeful point of view, and one I find agreeable. I merely suggest that Longfellow extends the possibility of leaving footprints to us all, not as a mentor but merely by being here, alive, and being entirely human.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/18/08 07:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis

TT- I did remark that they were metaphorical footprints. I like that poem. In spite of the mention of the soul it is a very hopeful point of view, and one I find agreeable. I merely suggest that Longfellow extends the possibility of leaving footprints to us all, not as a mentor but merely by being here, alive, and being entirely human.

Being entirely human is subjective isn't it, when it comes to the personal. In the bigger scheme of things as we learn to discover the potential of Humanity those that are seen as adepts or profits abnormal to the common way of thinking may one day be recognized as closer to being the norm.
Often we narrow humanity to examples that fit our ability to comprehend, and those foot steps that fit into that mold. All others seem to be innocuous and transparent.

Man has a habit of building pedestals that fail to hold an icon for more than a few generations. Perhaps with evolution there will be some improvement.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/18/08 02:04 PM

Ellis, Coberst, in BrainMeta, speaks of the value of the ego as he quotes another writer, Becker
Quote:
The ego makes morality possible. I guess that the ego makes both good and evil possible and it is within the reach of most of us to make the better choice. ... It is the device that other animal do not have and thus they instinctively respond immediately to the world.
I responded: Makes sense to me, Coberst. Thanks!

I warned Coberst to be prepared for the one who thinks he is God's press agent and spinner (Jo &/or TT), to declare us and Ernest Becker to be all wrong.

BTW, Jo &/or TT: Is this the ego-like role you seem to enjoy playing? I have the awareness that my ego is experiencing Jo/TT's comments as coming from so kind of sociopath, who thinks that his opinion in the only Tolle-like and god-like opinion.

If I am wrong, I am always open to be corrected.

I told Coberst that I agreed with him when he seemed to be saying that animals have no idea of what it means to morally good, or evil. They seem to have no concept of what it means "to sin"...they just react, naturally, to their experiences. ... this same kind of behaviour is also true for a some so-called human beings--those who who we call psychopaths and/or sociopaths (animal-like and inhumane beings).

ECKHART TOLLE--GOD-LIKE AND INFALLIBLE? I DO NOT THINK SO. NOR DOES HE EVER CLAIM IT. NOR SHOULD ANYONE MAKE THIS CLAIM
Furthermore, nowhere do I read that ET tells us that he alone has a hot line to any kind of a god and, therefore, that he alone is infallible, or even original. I respect him for his skill as a communicator. Just listening to him and watching him communicate is the best lesson as to HOW to be aware of the NOW.

Keep in mind that, it was two thousand years ago, that the apostle Paul told the readers of his letters to, "pray--that is, connect with, or tune into, all wisdom and power--without ceasing." The semitic languages have no future tense. They affirmed the divine presence in the NOW, not in some distant place in the future. When Jesus "prayed" "Thy kingdom come..." He affirmed it as in the process of coming, NOW--a message I preached often in sermons on the topic.

I respect ET, NOT for his infallibility, or originality, but for reminding us of how the original message of Jesus and others has been so distorted, by all organized religions, in its transmission.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/18/08 04:56 PM

Quote:
The ego makes morality possible. I guess that the ego makes both good and evil possible and it is within the reach of most of us to make the better choice. ... It is the device that other animal do not have and thus they instinctively respond immediately to the world.

This is true in the sense that the ego is the mechanism that translates desire or thought into experience. When the ego is without the impressions of belief, it is the servant to consciousness and it works very well.
When the ego becomes filled with ideas of belief, translation of energy becomes convoluted as it passes through or is filtered through those beliefs and the picture/experience isn't clear.
The picture becomes personal and only the one personality will cling to that one picture.
With the separation of personality no two will experience anything exactly the same way.

So interpretation of the original message of Jesus without a cleared ego, is subjective from the point of view of the ego, as belief projects limited ideas of who or what Jesus was and any messages he had to give.
This would be the reason Jesus spoke in parables, and also why there are so many incorrect translations of scripture. The ego steps into a conversation and approaches words without any innocence or the ability to hear or see clearly.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

If I am wrong, I am always open to be corrected.
The obvious reality of that statement is that if you are unable to recognize reality beyond right and wrong, then change will be subject to the belief that would replace the current belief so that you would look in a different direction.
Until the ego is removed as the controller of vision and experience all interpretations of reality are made from the idea that what you see outside of you is not the reflection of you the personality, but someone or something else.
The NOW is not experienced, only reflections of egoic beliefs in reality.

Willingness then would be subject to any change that fits in the box of ideals. If the change requires stepping out of that box without any experience of what is outside of the box, (God in this case) nothing could be recognized when the mind is so attuned only to what the box has conditioned the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

This was the problem with the Pharisees and Jesus. The Pharisees could only see the man and to them the man was a sociopath and or a megalomaniac.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/18/08 10:09 PM

My interest is in talking to Ellis about her opinion of Tolle's work.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/18/08 10:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
My interest is in talking to Ellis about her opinion of Tolle's work.
My interest was in you labeling me a sociopath in your conversation.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
BTW, Jo &/or TT: Is this the ego-like role you seem to enjoy playing? I have the awareness that my ego is experiencing Jo/TT's comments as coming from so kind of sociopath, who thinks that his opinion in the only Tolle-like and god-like opinion.
I figured if you didn't want to include me you would have either kept the conversation in a less public media or not have made the statement without my being able to engage myself in your public declaration. wink
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/19/08 12:52 AM

TT- Remember that the most efficient way to learn is from the specific to the universal. And what is more specific than self/ego? It is risky making assumptions about others' reactions when there is not a solid, well-understood personal starting point and a mind open to new ideas. It is the latter that the Pharisees lacked I think!

Rev. I won't comment on Tolle. I did go the the site you recommended however, and read some of it.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/19/08 12:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
TT- Remember that the most efficient way to learn is from the specific to the universal. And what is more specific than self/ego? It is risky making assumptions about others' reactions when there is not a solid, well-understood personal starting point and a mind open to new ideas. It is the latter that the Pharisees lacked I think!

Rev. I won't comment on Tolle. I did go the the site you recommended however, and read some of it.

The ego is specific to belief not universal objectivity. What you learn from a shallow belief system limits you to the objectivity of being open to new ideas that conflict with belief systems.
If you stand in the universal it is much easier to recognize limits or lines in the sand. Especially if you have come from such specific idealization and have learned to rise above it.

Also it helps to be familiar with the universal.. wink
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/19/08 04:57 AM

Could not objectivity be seen as the antithesis of belief, as the former is based on reality and the latter on faith? Or are you claiming objectivity can exist in belief?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/19/08 06:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
Could not objectivity be seen as the antithesis of belief, as the former is based on reality and the latter on faith? Or are you claiming objectivity can exist in belief?
What is reality of it is fragmented in belief and experienced differently from personality to personality.
Why not look at objectivity as a refinement of belief. Without trying to be democratic but by immersing yourself in that which underlies beliefs of personality, then it is possible to experience the variance of perceptions in reality without the attachment to it. It would be the difference in seeing the world from inside the wilderness of the forest and from the top of the mountain with knowledge of both.

It wasn't that long ago we believed collectively that it was impossible to fly. Until someone decided to push beyond that belief and build a flying machine the world accepted reality as being without man made flight. Similarly the world does not accept those things which are not experienced yet for thousands of years man has had living within society, people who experience life beyond the limitation of ego and death of the body.
What will it take, the 100th monkey of evolution of man and his ability to receive the experience or is it real now?
Man thinks nothing exists until it is experienced or made available to experience, but isn't discovery really the awakening to that which is already possible but not yet allowed to be real until man has reached a level that makes him capable of using such a thing constructively in his life?
We now have the ability to blow ourselves up several times over and man still doesn't yet have the experience to control himself without losing his objectivity to emotional reaction and create wars, cage people who have been nurtured by a society that cares not for its starving and homeless to become desperate enough to try and take what they need from those who have. We as a society limited by ego still hide our heads in the sand to avoid the very things we could eradicate if we were to apply ourselves to something other than our personal ideals and the greed of self satisfaction.
If we really knew how intimately connected we are to each other we wouldn't ignore what we are in those we choose to judge as criminal, or not worth as much effort as we make to please ourselves by focusing on what we think we can't live without, in our retirement funds, our televisions and RV's, and the labels we give ourselves to make ourselves feel good about who we are.
If we were truly objective and without fear of losing what we have in order to take the time to change ourselves, we could change the world.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/20/08 12:30 AM

I would have to suggest that in fact belief has to be subjective. I also feel that assuming a lack of belief would not allow for the experience of interconnectedness (!) is an unfounded conclusion. It is also unfounded to assume that everyone else has to experience everything for themselves in order for them to believe. I pointed out somewhere else on this site that I have never seen the Olympic Stadium in Beijing- but I believe it is there. There are millions of experiences and events that I have not experienced and many more that I may, but I do not deny their existence merely because I have not experienced them.

It is however impossible to be objective about such things as belief, without some proof of its reality. They are subjective, but to many people none the less real for that. TT- your universal perception is blindingly apparent to you, but it remains opaque to others who do not share your subjective beliefs. I feel it is possible to confuse belief with opinion when others are denied the possibility of their own ideas.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/20/08 03:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
I would have to suggest that in fact belief has to be subjective. I also feel that assuming a lack of belief would not allow for the experience of interconnectedness (!) is an unfounded conclusion. It is also unfounded to assume that everyone else has to experience everything for themselves in order for them to believe. I pointed out somewhere else on this site that I have never seen the Olympic Stadium in Beijing- but I believe it is there. There are millions of experiences and events that I have not experienced and many more that I may, but I do not deny their existence merely because I have not experienced them.

It is however impossible to be objective about such things as belief, without some proof of its reality. They are subjective, but to many people none the less real for that. TT- your universal perception is blindingly apparent to you, but it remains opaque to others who do not share your subjective beliefs. I feel it is possible to confuse belief with opinion when others are denied the possibility of their own ideas.

In the conversations that ensue with subjective belief systems it often seems necessary to come to agreement, but is it possible to understand a belief without studying it from different angles before one can come to agreement? Objectivity comes from looking at something from more than just belief.
What you seem to suggest in this conversation is that the absolute which I refer to, is a belief rather than something other, and so I understand your approach to separate what you call reality with what I call reality.
Obviously you believe the Olympic Stadium exists regardless of belief and regardless of whether you experience it or not.
However your subjective/objective (controlled) point of view is one that is insisting that more (people or mainstream media) substantiate the underlying principle of belief and manifest reality, be visible to the current state of psychic awareness to establish itself in accountability before one can accept it as more than just a belief of mine. This is kind of the approach of scientific repeatability.
This is understandable too. This is the way of the ego. To identify with what it can experience not only in ones self but in others.
The Olympic stadium has been subject to documentation and celebration on the written and broadcast media of radio and Television. To everyone it exists at the physical level of that kind of thinking.

The Absolute has not quite made its appearance into popularity because it cannot be contained in any measure of the media or social mores, it exists regardless of belief or subjective idealism and rationale. In order to approach it you have to withdraw the mind and senses from the outer world and go inside of it. One has to begin to explore the inside of themselves

Once one begins to dedicate their attention to it, there is all kinds of history to document not only the human experience of it, but the relationship of it to all beliefs and manifestations.
The history of the absolute in its relationship to conscious self awareness which is written in Vedic texts dating back some 2500 years and maintained as an oral tradition even before documentation, is the very foundation of Western or Christian spiritual teachings in being "Born Again" and teachings of Eastern spirituality and "Enlightenment."

Few have made the transition within each generation into the experience of the absolute due to the collective acceptance in relative belief that something only exists if there is proof and everyone can experience it at the same time. Or to put it simply because of the block in psychic awareness created by the EGO.
True objectivity removes the fear/difficulty from being open so that the experience can become manifest. Ego takes a position that something is difficult. This makes everything subjective rather than objective, so, if it (God/The Absolute) does not make itself apparent to prevent the ego from doubt and its relative thought streams that are relaying information back and forth from memory to the present experience of belief in reality, Ego will not budge from its current programing nor can it consider anything other than the current program.

Tho you would like the absolute to present itself so that it is not so difficult for you to give up your present beliefs to be open to something else, the universe does not, nor will it wait for you, it will continue as it always does without you and your beliefs to be cognizant of all that it is.

It patiently awaits the day when you make the choice to open yourself to more by dropping the disbelief or difficulty in acceptance so that your eyes open to see what has always been there. It is not the fault of God that you do not see or experience God, it is by the habit of your choice that you ignore God in disbelief.

Times are now supporting more and more awakening to the absolute through many teachings that have been resurrected from the past when they were dropped because they were believed to be superstition only. This is because there are more and more people in this generation than there has been in thousands of years who are awakening to the absolute. We are on the threshold of a new awakening in humanity and the refinement of religion that is the clearing of superstition and false perceptions of the ego from reality, to expose the underlying truth.

Whether you accept it or not will not change it anymore than the belief that the world was flat changed the fact that the earth as a sphere spins on its own axis in orbit around the Sun.

I'm sure when Columbus threatened to sail across the ocean without falling off the edge it made those who insisted on maintaining that the world was flat feel like they could not have their beliefs because he was thinking to go regardless of their beliefs. But truth eventually outlives such demands that false beliefs be left intact and egos not be threatened.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/20/08 05:24 AM

Quote:
TT- your universal perception is blindingly apparent to you, but it remains opaque to others who do not share your subjective beliefs. I feel it is possible to confuse belief with opinion when others are denied the possibility of their own ideas.
Amen, Ellis!!!
BTW, way back, TT boasted that he was spiritually mature enough and in the NOW enough so as to be above being hurt by any admonishments--the kind he majors in handing out to others.

Now he whines:
Quote:
My interest was in you labeling me a sociopath in your conversation.
OK, I will gladly remove the label and apologize on condition that, without taking on the air of spiritual superiority, he starts being more transparent and less opaque and respects that we all have the right to our own subjective opinions. I am sure that Tolle makes no claim that he is spiritually superior to others.

Another whine
Quote:
I figured if you didn't want to include me ...

Wrong. My opinion is not personal. I do not know you well enough to be personal. It has to do with having to read so much content and accept your subjective beliefs as if they are God's one and only truth.

If you wish to continue to write as you do now, ego and all, and in complete AWARENESS: I will act on what I wrote in my PM.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/20/08 05:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Quote:
TT- your universal perception is blindingly apparent to you, but it remains opaque to others who do not share your subjective beliefs. I feel it is possible to confuse belief with opinion when others are denied the possibility of their own ideas.
Amen, Ellis!!!
BTW, way back, TT boasted that he was spiritually mature enough and in the NOW enough so as to be above being hurt by any admonishments--the kind he majors in handing out to others.


Now he whines:
Quote:
My interest was in you labeling me a sociopath in your conversation.
OK, I will gladly remove the label and apologize on condition that, without taking on the air of spiritual superiority, he starts being more transparent and less opaque and respects that we all have the right to our own subjective opinions. I am sure that Tolle makes no claim that he is spiritually superior to others.

Thanks for making the attempt to be gracious, but removing the label obviously doesn't change your air of contempt or remove the anxiety. That is what I was referring to as the ego and what sways the intellect from objectivity.
Rather than looking at it as a Whine, I like to look at it as a conscious observation of the obvious.

Obviously I can't take your opinion away from you but if you are so easily threatened by me, and my language, I would have to admonish the rather obvious reality that your opinion is shrouded in fear and conjecture rather than anything substantial if it is so easily threatened by what someone else says about it.

Just because you don't like what I say does not make me the antichrist nor does it diminish your beliefs if you don't have any respect for them to believe they stand on their own regardless of my statements.

You seem to want to make me in charge of your feelings and reactions rather than owning your feelings and reactions yourself.
Do you really believe I can write something here on this forum and by doing so take away your pride and beliefs?
That kind of thinking was an example of the superstition that was empirical during the Puritan Witch hunts.

If it makes you feel any better you can keep the label so you can feel justified in your feelings and accusations. It doesn't matter to me. If it helps you to move thru this and expand beyond this limited idea you cling to more power to you.

C'est la vie
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Another whine
Quote:
I figured if you didn't want to include me ...

Wrong. My opinion is not personal. I do not know you well enough to be personal. It has to do with having to read so much content and accept your subjective beliefs as if they are God's one and only truth.

If you wish to continue to write as you do now, ego and all, and in complete AWARENESS: I will act on what I wrote in my PM.

Well then using your analogy, (without getting into the full context or meaning of the message and making any more assumptions.....) If you believe I do not know you personally then why take anything I say as personal, or as "God's one and only Truth?" Truth Absolute underlies all meanings and messages. Interpretation of any message is going to be subjective and objective based on levels of awareness and maturity of consciousness. It is often necessary to relay information in terms of its entirety rather than to pick words and phrases from a passage to bolster individual belief as a minister does when reading from a bible, picking out phrases and making assumptions to their meaning and intent.

Obviously if you want to run to the moderator because of the above reasons to "tell on me", what other reason would there be other than to express a personal reason for moderation and judgment? Unless you want to present what you say as the voice of God or all posters of the forum. Are you claiming to be the voice of the public in defense of the public for the crimes of TT against public morals and ideals?

C'mon Rev.... You're making all of this extremely personal.
Perhaps you should take a.... "time out"... wink
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/21/08 03:07 AM

AT CARTHAGE - DISCOURSE ON TIME AND SPACE


Most of the time en route to Carthage Jesus talked with his fellow travelers about things social, political, and commercial; hardly a word was said about religion. For the first time Gonod and Ganid discovered that Jesus was a good storyteller, and they kept him busy telling tales about his early life in Galilee. They also learned that he was reared in Galilee and not in either Jerusalem or Damascus.
When Ganid inquired what one could do to make friends, having noticed that the majority of persons whom they chanced to meet were attracted to Jesus, his teacher said: "Become interested in your fellows; learn how to love them and watch for the opportunity to do something for them which you are sure they want done," and then he quoted the olden Jewish proverb; "A man who would have friends must show himself friendly."
At Carthage Jesus had a long and memorable talk with a Mithraic priest about immortality, about time and eternity. This Persian had been educated at Alexandria, and he really desired to learn from Jesus. Put into the words of today, in substance Jesus said in answer to his many questions:
Time is the stream of flowing temporal events perceived by creature consciousness. Time is a name given to the succession-arrangement whereby events are recognized and segregated. The universe of space is a time-related phenomenon as it is viewed from any interior position outside of the fixed abode of Paradise. The motion of time is only revealed in relation to something which does not move in space as a time phenomenon. In the universe of universes Paradise and its Deities transcend both time and space. On the inhabited worlds, human personality (indwelt and oriented by the Paradise Father's spirit) is the only physically related reality which can transcend the material sequence of temporal events.
Animals do not sense time as does man, and even to man, because of his sectional and circumscribed view, time appears as a succession of events; but as man ascends, as he progresses inward, the enlarging view of this event procession is such that it is discerned more and more in its wholeness. That which formerly appeared as a succession of events then will be viewed as a whole and perfectly related cycle; in this way will circular simultaneity increasingly displace the onetime consciousness of the linear sequence of events.
There are seven different conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time. Space is measured by time, not time by space. The confusion of the scientist grows out of failure to recognize the reality of space. Space is not merely an intellectual concept of the variation in relatedness of universe objects. Space is not empty, and the only thing man knows which can even partially transcend space is mind. Mind can function independently of the concept of the space-relatedness of material objects. Space is relatively and comparatively finite to all beings of creature status. The nearer consciousness approaches the awareness of seven cosmic dimensions, the more does the concept of potential space approach ultimacy. But the space potential is truly ultimate only on the absolute level.
It must be apparent that universal reality has an expanding and always relative meaning on the ascending and perfecting levels of the cosmos. Ultimately, surviving mortals achieve identity in a seven-dimensional universe.
The time-space concept of a mind of material origin is destined to undergo successive enlargements as the conscious and conceiving personality ascends the levels of the universes. When man attains the mind intervening between the material and the spiritual planes of existence, his ideas of time-space will be enormously expanded both as to quality of perception and quantity of experience. The enlarging cosmic conceptions of an advancing spirit personality are due to augmentations of both depth of insight and scope of consciousness. And as personality passes on, upward and inward, to the transcendental levels of Deity-likeness, the time-space concept will increasingly approximate the timeless and spaceless concepts of the Absolutes. Relatively, and in accordance with transcendental attainment, these concepts of the absolute level are to be envisioned by the children of ultimate destiny.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/21/08 04:11 AM

HEALTHY RELIGION INCLUDES INFORMATION ABOUT DIET--HEALTHY FOODS FOR THE BODY AND MIND AS WELL AS THE SPIRIT.
============================================
IT IS ABOUT BEING HEALTHY IN BODY, MIND AND SPIRIT

One third of the FAMILY-LIFE-FOUNDATION sponsored Pneumatology Lecture Series, which I gave--and still do, when asked--all through my ministry, had to do with HOLISTIC HEALTH, including diet. Trained nutritionists and doctors interested in diet gave many of the lectures.
================================================================
CTV (Canada) NEWS, just this evening, headlined the following news about what we eat and how it affects our health. Widely respected anchor, Lloyd Robertson said:

NEW RESEARCH HAS UNCOVERED THE FACT THAT THE TYPICAL WESTERN DIET--RED MEATS, STEAKS, BACON, FRIES AND THE LIKE--INCREASES THE INCIDENCE OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES, INCLUDING HEART ATTACKS, BY 35%. This information comes as the result of a large and science-based study of eating habits of people in many parts of the world, not just in one area.
===============================
Then I checked my e-mail. A friend, who like me, has had a life-long interest in holistic health sent me the following about healthy foods:
http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/11d1d0a8b509a6b9
Was this a coincidence? Or was it spiritually-guided synchronicity?

GOD--Goodness, Order and Design--really seems to be in an through all things, including our best foods.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/21/08 06:25 PM

Life Begins in Innocence.

We come into life innocently. We as children live completely in the present moment. We don't worry about tomorrow; we don't regret yesterday. There are no self-defeating beliefs and judgments about life.
If I were to diagram a baby's mind, I could simply draw an empty circle. This is a mind in a state of infinite potential, but not yet actualized. Then I could draw an infinity symbol within the circle, The baby's mind is still in touch with the Infinite, the Unbounded. This is what allows a baby to be completely in the present moment. Because the baby does not attempt to live in the past or the future, the power of the baby's mind is awesome. Consider how quickly the infant masters a complex language.
Adults generally can't learn that easily. And why? Because adults no longer live in the present moment. The adult's mind is caught by self-defeating beliefs and judgments. Where did they come from? One source is our parents. As infants, we only desired love. But perhaps our parents weren't completely ideal and couldn't always give us as much love as we wanted. Perhaps our father came home after a hard day and shouted at us for leaving our toy car in the driveway. Or maybe he shouted at our mother about his dinner and she just didn't have enough energy left to be completely loving to us. What happens? We develop a little program inside that says, "I'm not worthy of love." (Now I could Draw another circle on the board, inside the other one and it would represent a conditioned program of belief) This continues to operate in us as adults on a very deep, quiet level: the result is that when we grow up, we may have a hard time having an ideal relationship. We keep shooting ourselves in the foot, feeling we are unworthy of love. So this is one kind of stress that we have all picked up: stress from our parents.
Even if the parents were absolutely perfect, perhaps the brothers and sisters weren't exactly overjoyed to have a new baby in the house, competing for the parents' attention; this created another program of unworthiness. (Now I'll draw another circle within the circle to represent another internal subconscious program) A friend once told me, "I remember going through our family photo album, counting the pictures of my brother and of me. He, being the elder, had more! Didn't they love me as much? I also remember him sneaking into my bedroom when I was still in my crib and pinching me very hard. Didn't he love me? Of course he did, but he was jealous; I was much too young to appreciate that."
Or even if family life was absolutely ideal, one day we go off to school. It is all based on competition. We learn to compete, not to create. We learn that we don't do as well in math as Bobbie, so we stop doing math. We draw something we think is wonderful and we're told, "Ewww, how ugly." Part of us believes what we're told, that we can't draw; almost all of us stop drawing by the age of six. What if Picasso had been told, "That doesn't look like anything!" and what if he had believed it? Or Monet? Or Dali? The point is that these stresses picked up so innocently by our experiences are freezing our lives into definitions that seem beyond our conscious control.
Many of these internal programs come from our society itself. There is such a thing as the hypnosis of our cultural conditioning: we're all a part of the collective consciousness of our society. (Now I'll draw more circles, representing these underlying programs of thought and belief adding to the thoughts and beliefs that are between the cognitive outer experience of the outer circle or the mind, and the infinite buried under the thoughts) Some of our society's beliefs are useful to us and some are not. Most of us don't need to know how to find water in the desert; so the knowledge given us by our society doesn't often teach us this. Instead, we're taught how to pay water bills on time. But if we were born in the Sahara, our society's knowledge would be very different, ideally suited to our environment. A nomad from the Sahara would not survive well on the Interstate; he'd probably get run over very quickly; we wouldn't survive long in the Sahara.

Self-Destructive Habits Cripple Effectiveness, Enjoyment and Health.

The problem here is that some of the beliefs we've adopted are useful, some of the habits and internal programs serve us, but many do not. It's useful to remember how to drive our car without having to re-read the owner's manual every time we sit behind the wheel. It's useful to remember which house we live in without having to ring all our neighbors' doorbells and ask them, "Hello, do I live here?" It's useful to recognize your wife or husband when you get home. But so many of these internal programs are not serving us in any useful way. So many of them are damaging.

Have you ever tried to break a habit and failed? Most of the habits we don't like are operating at a level just slightly beneath our conscious awareness. It is very, very difficult to break any habit through effort. Ask any psychoanalyst, you will be told that to root out the source of any destructive behavior is quite complicated and takes a very long time -- and costs a very large amount of money!
Most of us have no problem desiring good things: ideal relationships, ideal jobs, ideal health, and a happy, fulfilling life. But the problem comes when we undermine or defeat these desires by these pernicious and quiet internal programs that say, "You don't deserve that!" or "Get real, you can't have that!" or "Come on, be serious, you're not good enough for him!" So many times, if you're quiet enough to notice these little voices, they sound exactly like your mother or your father or maybe a teacher you once had. These people could all be long dead, but they live on in you: criticizing, condemning, and causing you to fail even before you begin.
When the mind works against itself like this, your ability to succeed in any area is greatly diminished, as is your ability to be happy or even healthy! How much of disease is psychosomatic in origin? Some doctors say almost all of it. The mind is literally out of control in the average adult person. What is left of the baby's innocent, silent mind? Have you heard from psychologists a figure, how much of the minds potential for creativity is being used by the typical adult? Only 5% to 10% of the mind is all that's left! And what is the rest of the mind doing? Thinking, incessantly thinking, chattering away, never ever stopping for a rest. Scientists at Stanford Research Institute have estimated that the average person thinks 100,000 thoughts per day! That's a lot of thoughts. But it's not that we're sitting around thinking up new Mozart symphonies or writing new Shakespeare plays. What are we thinking about? "What's for dinner?" Or, "Why did he say that to me!" Or, "Why did I marry him!" The same thing we thought yesterday and the day before and the day before that. Over and over and over again, pointlessly chattering. Thinking constantly, tiring the body, going nowhere, creating nothing but fatigue.

You see the baby's silent mind is coherent. It experiences the present moment. It isn't regretting the past or worrying about the future. It's simply here and now. Have you ever seen a cat jump for a bird and miss? What does it do? It doesn't think, "If I'd only had tuna for breakfast instead of Alley Cat!" It doesn't think, "If only I'd worked out last week!" It doesn't think, "It wasn't worth catching anyway!" It doesn't think, "I'm trying to cut down anyway." No, what does it do? It turns around twice, yawns, and falls asleep. When it wakes up, it is ready to jump again for another bird, fully awake, fully alive, fully in the present moment. That is skill in action.
But we humans somehow have developed this organ up here (the brain) to think all the time. We've given it dominance over everything. And you don't have to look very far in the world to see how well the dominance of the 10% mind has worked. The human race is like a wildly multiplying cancer, destroying everything it contacts. The ozone is being depleted. The lakes, rivers and seas are drowning in garbage. In spite of all our wonderful advances in the past hundred years, we still have a billion people starving to death at this very moment. Let's face it: this 10% mind is not very bright. It keeps us ineffective at best and highly damaging at worst; it keeps us suffering, lonely and unhappy; it even makes us sick.

Scientific Research Demonstrates the Supremacy of the Mind.

How does our mind make us sick? There has been some fascinating research over the past fifty years which shows just how closely connected our minds are to our bodies: our habitual thoughts determine the state of our health and even our longevity.
One of the earliest and most interesting studies was performed on some rabbits at Ohio University in the seventies. The scientists were attempting to prove the relationship between a toxic, high cholesterol diet and hardening of the arteries. They thought that if they fed the rabbits' high cholesterol food, they should logically develop high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries and the other symptoms we have learned to associate with heart disease, which is still the largest killer in the Western world. The experiment was going along very well, with most of the bunnies developing the expected symptoms, except for one group of rabbits that were not having the expected results. The scientists just couldn't understand it -- they were feeding the rabbits in this group the same high cholesterol food, but the rabbits just weren't developing any of the predicted symptoms. No high blood pressure. No hardening of the arteries. No hypertension. Nothing.
Fortunately for the study, and unfortunately for the rabbits, the technician who was feeding that particular group of rabbits fell ill. Almost immediately, her rabbits started developing the expected symptoms! Naturally the scientists were curious as to why and asked her what she had done differently. "Why nothing," she said, "I fed the rabbits the food as you told me to. I took them out of their cages, held them, stroked them, and sang to them, fed them. Wasn't this right?"
It was the same food, but the rabbits' minds turned the high cholesterol food into other channels, which protected their health! The scientists were amazed. They thought they were studying hardening of the arteries; they were really studying the effects of love. They tried this over and over again and found that rabbits that were loved simply wouldn't fall ill as readily. Isn't this amazing? And this was just rabbits, not even people! How can love change the effect of food? So the moral is: if you're going to eat Big Macs, sit on your boyfriend's lap while you're eating it.

Taking in account the brief descriptions of the psychological approach to life and to everything that is in it, we have become dependent on authority to tell us what is good for us in body and mind. This authority is living in the same psychological conditioning as is described in the brief outline above, thinking with internal programs and beliefs trying to do what is best with the 5%-10% potential of mind to approach what is necessary to maintain a healthy mind and body.
Truth is we can just about eat anything we want to in portions that meet the body's needs. It is the way we use food to mask psychological undercurrents of stress that becomes unhealthy.
Food when used to create feelings to cover up another feeling often leads to obesity.
It's not the food so much as how we think and what we think.

A person with a heavily influenced psychological program that is filled with conflicting ideas and beliefs causing stress in every area of concern can eat the healthiest diet in the world and not survive the psychological conditioning.
On the other hand someone who is perfectly happy and without any stress in the nervous system living perfectly in the now could eat all of the bad foods on a nutritionists list and live a healthy happy life.

There was a study done on identical twins. One exercised every day, ate only a vegetarian diet, the other ate what she wanted whenever she wanted, never exercised and they both had exactly the same body weight and were both healthy. Obviously it wasn't the food, but the state of the mind which had dominance over the body and its condition.

So the question is asked how do you remove stress from the body and mind so as to rise above the beliefs that condition our experience of ourselves and our life?
The answer is to give the mind something that is more expansive and real to focus on than these conditions of belief. To remove ourselves from false authority that we become so reliant on, and to return ourselves to the knowledge and understanding of ourselves so that we can make wise decisions based on Truth rather than relative beliefs of understanding doled out by those who claim authority without being of clear mind and body, and without the capacity to be living in the NOW.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/22/08 02:08 AM

Any posters actually have the patience to read through the last post by TT? Or is it Jo?

If so, I would like to hear from you and have your summary. I make this request simply out out curiosity--for no other reason.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/22/08 02:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Any posters actually have the patience to read through the last post...
If so, I would like to hear from you and have your summary. I make this request simply out out curiosity--for no other reason.

Isn't that the way most misconstrue the meaning of religion, or of any philosophy, by not having the patience to learn about it but to make assumptions based on summaries written by critics?

Obviously this is why we were having the discussion regarding knowledge and experience of Tolle, Scripture and God, made from conjecture or immersion into the study of said subject.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/22/08 04:38 PM

Tolle is a communicator--in the written and spoken word. His communications are mostly transparent, consistent, to the point and a joy to read. He also speaks with the same clarity.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/22/08 05:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Tolle is a communicator--in the written and spoken word. His communications are mostly transparent, consistent, to the point and a joy to read. He also speaks with the same clarity.
Yes I've heard you say that, but I haven't heard you speak from what you have heard, anything that is within the meanings of what he speaks of. What I have heard you say about his subject of the NOW is what you translate through your current understanding.
This is the same kind of translation that is varied from religious belief to religious belief when someone speaks of God.
Without the actual experience of God within all religions one builds a castle of belief and lives within those particular walls without seeing the bigger picture.
Castle walls are from where you communicate, where as Tolle communicates free from the walls.
You still have too many judgments and internal stresses about how things should look and what you like to be objective enough to hear anything more than what you are used to echoing within the walls you have built.
That's not a bad thing its just part of the ego and the way it clings to identification.

BTW, you've made it obvious that you like summarization and have little patience for taking the time to spend within the written word unless it entertains you.
You miss alot by being selective to the impulse for instant gratification. How much reading of Tolle, and How many of the YouTube blurbs would you think it would take to become an expert on Tolle and his descriptions of the NOW?
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/22/08 10:08 PM

Ellis, recently you spoke about those who "blindly" see and hear what they want to see and hear. I guess your BS detector and mine operate on the same frequency. smile

In the light of the above, I assume you will be interested in taking a look at the latest post by the twin-of-spin. It is a perfect example of what you wrote. Here it is:
Quote:
Yes I've heard you say that, but I haven't heard you speak from what you have heard, anything that is within the meanings of what he speaks of.
What absolute and arrogant nonsense!!!!
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/22/08 11:31 PM

I do always try to understand different points of view, and I try not to be dogmatic myself (even though I know I am absolutely always right! >joking<). There are some basic human values, such as the need for real equality, the rights of childen to a meaningful life etc on which I refuse to compromise my beliefs, but mostly I would suggest that everyone should state their point of view freely and I will listen, read or even choose to ignore that which upsets me. What I do find challenging is that the asssumption of absolute truth in one's own ideas can lead to acrimonious argument that cannot be described as positive by either side of an inflexible conversation. That's a great shame, as it is the exchange of ideas that is important, not winning.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/23/08 02:59 AM

Quote:
... it is the exchange of ideas that is important, not winning.
Agreed!
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/23/08 03:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Quote:
Yes I've heard you say that, but I haven't heard you speak from what you have heard, anything that is within the meanings of what he speaks of.
What absolute and arrogant nonsense!!!!
It actually makes perfect sense.
Tolle is (when he speaks of the presence of the now) making contact with it and speaking from it.
Obviously if someone thinks the now is a belief or a feeling one has during an experience, the possibility of understanding resonance of the subject is somewhat vague.
When the subject of brain surgery was used as an example or even the Olympic stadium in Beijing, we understand the object of perception, and it would, to someone who had been inside of the stadium many times be obvious when someone who has also been inside of it speaks of their familiarity with it. So would one who has been inside the human brain many times surgically exploring the brain be able to recognize someone who has also been familiar with the direct contact and experience of surgically exploring the inside of the brain.
When Tolle speaks he is very animated in his closing of his eyes to speak from and of the experience of the absolute/Now. To someone who has a belief about the human brain or the Beijing Stadium the conversation would be made from surface impressions gained thru topics of discussion, reading about the topic of discussion maybe even pictures, but the example of direct experience and intellectual approach without experience is easily understood and recognized thru those who have direct experience.
The Now or the presence which underlies everything as Tolle Speaks of, and in his animated delivery of recognition and expression of it, is to qualify something that is more than a belief, and obviously more than an intellectual idea.

If we assume it is an idea and or a Belief we could also assume that he has only an experience of his idea and of his belief and the universality of Truth underlying all relative truths is a chimera. Possibly Tolle made up the idea of the NOW, or read it in a book, or heard it on the grapevine....

But I think its easy enough to come to the conclusion that all who are familiar with the NOW and with Tolle know different, especially if you Know the NOW.

Originally Posted By: Ellis
I do always try to understand different points of view, and I try not to be dogmatic myself (even though I know I am absolutely always right! >joking<). There are some basic human values, such as the need for real equality, the rights of childen to a meaningful life etc on which I refuse to compromise my beliefs, but mostly I would suggest that everyone should state their point of view freely and I will listen, read or even choose to ignore that which upsets me. What I do find challenging is that the asssumption of absolute truth in one's own ideas can lead to acrimonious argument that cannot be described as positive by either side of an inflexible conversation. That's a great shame, as it is the exchange of ideas that is important, not winning.

What is absolute regardless of belief is not about winning or losing anymore than the Beijing stadium stands with a conscious need to be recognized for its specific value.
The belief that all should be given equal value, comes from the underlying reality that spirit in all, is the same. The Ego only fears it may be judged and given lesser value by that which it does not see as connected to itself. That would be the world around it. The Ego believes the world comes at it rather than it being part and parcel to its creation.

All children have the right and the free will to realize the meaning of their life regardless of the diversity and experience of life, even if one is born without arms and legs, or that life is cut short by someone or some thing. Consciousness is not contained within the physical "meat sack" ego assumes is the extent of humanity and consciousness.

What becomes meaningful is always subjective. That which underlies all subjectivity is absolute and it is the very presence of which Tolle speaks as he experiences it regardless of any beliefs about it.

There is no power on earth that could remove free will or the beliefs one has about anything. But it is safe to say that not all beliefs are founded on anything but ideas that lack direct experience. This has been part of human history and exemplified in the fear of falling off the edge of the earth, burning witches, bleeding the sick to heal, even the current superstitions that exist such as getting a cold by going out into the cold weather.

It's not hard to imagine how deluded the ego is when it makes a stand within its own boundaries of inexperience and projection, to make demands that everyone honor those perceptions based on personal belief and projections that are not of direct experience but from the broadcast ideas of moral majorities steeped in superstition. It exists in our own public school systems and public media where we allow the voice of public authority to tell us what is true regardless of whether we have experience in something or not, and regardless of whether it is actually real.

In ancient China it used to be required that all physicians display the number of patients who died under their care on a placard outside their place of business. This way it was easy to eliminate the continuing practice of those who could not actually heal their patients
Today we sign wavers to protect the physician making it our responsibility if we lose our life to the practicing physician.
Do we assume the doctor who is practicing on us is doing so by his or her belief in medicine or do we assume he/she has spent some time immersing both mind and body in the science and experience of medicine? Do we assume medicine is a relative truth or a scientific truth and do we assume it is without error and the human is the one who errs in the approach as the physician or the patient?

Judging by our willingness to accept the responsibility for the consequences of treatment I would say that most treat medicine as a belief just as they do God or the absolute NOW. That it is something that cannot be relied upon as something that is absolute or real but personal, and at best a belief.
Then the NOW is no better than any other Religion.

To use the personal word. I know better. I know that someone who immerses themselves in the ongoing experience of something can tell when someone who hasn't, speaks of their acquaintance with a subject, without having developed a commitment to the intellectual and physical familiarity of the subject at hand.

This is just plain common sense, and it has nothing to do with arrogance. It would be more arrogant to assume that anyone who reads about medicine or the NOW would be a practicing physician, or enlightened. It would be arrogant to assume our equality and our success in life is dependent on the agreement of belief and or the freedom to believe what we will regardless of agreement.

Lets assume someone believes they are inferior and without the ability to achieve. As long as we are having this discussion about rights to belief and any invasion toward belief wouldn't it be an invasion of belief and arrogant to try and remove the belief in inferiority and to try and help one of such belief rise above the self defeating ideas of inability and defeat?

If you really want to be objective you would have to be in the NOW, to be free of past influences of ideas that are based on the past so that you can be present, to be aware of what is actually going on.
Being intuitive enough to recognize the subtle nuances of someone who hasn't been a practicing brain surgeon would either have to be from experience or from an elevated intellect that isn't self absorbed in personal belief and superstition.

Knowing when someone who speaks of Tolle and the NOW hasn't spent but more than a few weeks skimming through a book and entertaining themselves on Youtube with Tolle videos, doesn't require the intellect of a genius to be able to tell the difference between someone who fancies an idea, while glorifying someone else and their vebiage of the NOW, and someone who has lived the experience and speaks of the NOW from their own experience.

Obviously Rev. if you would like to place yourself in the same category as Tolle, and with his experience, you would hardly have to put all your efforts to maintain the idea of the NOW and all of its glory by creating links to Tolle and his descriptions.
You could just as effectively speak of it without the need of Tolle.
Likewise as long as anyone wants to make sweeping statements to the idea of invasion of privacy and belief in countering illusion with reality as being arrogant and wrong, one would have to apply that idea logically from a non invested objective point of view to a specific idea that is not subject to alteration based on differing viewpoints and levels of experience.

As long as the intellect is not willing to invest itself in the study of the NOW, but rather live from summaries off of Youtube and a limited comprehension of the words of others, there is a good chance that all that person is capable of doing is to take what one has already accumulated in their beliefs of reality and surround the new words with their old ideas.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Quote:
... it is the exchange of ideas that is important, not winning.
Agreed!

If all that is important is to exchange ideas, leaving all that is illusion intact, without expanding the intellect through the destruction of false impressions and superstition. Then humanity has not yet reached a level of compassion, or intelligence, with any wisdom to take part in its own evolution by learning from experience.

Instead it will wait for change to happen by some random feat of intervention that will be non threatening to the ego, so that we can remain complacent to personally and individually reinvent the wheel through our own stubborn pride and arrogance.

Then truly we will be waiting for a God to help us all, without us all taking any responsibility in our spiritual growth..... frown
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/23/08 03:13 PM

Ellis, Speaking of ideas, this just in (p. AL5) www.nationalpost.com : Harvard study involving 320 adults confirms that SLEEP APNEA LINKED TO POOR DIET. Another item ALLERGIES ON THE RISE IN THE USA--probably includes other western nations, as well as Canada. Over the past 10 years there has been an 18% increase of people with digestive problems related to allergies.

On the same page there is a big story on newly-released research, WATCHING WHAT THEY EAT. It points out that "nearly all the food advertised on leading television channels" are aimed at children of all ages.

As one who believes that RELIGION MUST NOT BE SO HEAVENLY MINDED THAT IT IS NO EARTHLY GOOD smile decades ago at Willowdale United church, I helped establish www.flfcanada.com (Family Life Foundation) for the promotion of total health.

From the 60's to the 90's, the holistic nutritionists--
who were part of the FLF pneumatology holistic (body/mind/spirit) lecture series at Willowdale United church--all called attention to the way we are digging our early graves with our teeth. They were all strong advocates of education for diet reform.

It took a long time to awaken the media and governments which were then under the spell of big Pharma and the medical model. Are we finally at least coming to an awareness that we are responsible for our health?
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/23/08 09:59 PM

MORE ON IDEAS
=============
The following link points out the importance of our accepting the need to be aware of being personally responsible for our total health:

http://ca.mc903.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&.rand=758361810&da=0&midIndex=0&mid=1_86015_AIxk%2FNgAAN33SQDtPg0h1GrYrjY&f=1&nextMid=1_84946_AI1k%2FNgAAKXXSQCzDAbFohwxkdA&m=1_86015_AIxk%2FNgAAN33SQDtPg0h1GrYrjY,1_84946_AI1k%2FNgAAKXXSQCzDAbFohwxkdA,1_83465_AItk%2FNgAAT8OSP9FigxUMzmHByU,1_82420_AIpk%2FNgAAMCqSP6ADgm4Li%2B1rgk,1_81931_AIpk%2FNgAAK6NSP5ACg5ualk2VQU,1_82959_AItk%2FNgAATylSP6rrwlIX2p5L4g,

If you have any problem with getting this link, please let me know.

Keep in mind that, other than personal experience, I have no double-blind evidence to go on. However, because of the help I have received, I have the the strong feeling that the information presented by Rgarden is valid.

Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/24/08 08:51 AM

Rev,
I followed your link and got a sign up page for Yahoo Canada. Is that what you intended? If not, could you put up another link?

Amaranth
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. - 10/24/08 07:28 PM

Quote:
Rev, I followed your link and got a sign up page for Yahoo Canada. Is that what you intended? If not, could you put up another link? Amaranth
Amaranth, when I click on the link I get get an interesting essay of opinion by a Mike Adams, which purports to expose what he calls the "Cancer Industry". It was sent to me in an e-mail from www.rgarden.com which has a good track record in matters of holistic health using enzymes.

Because I am an advocate of the integration of spirituality and holistic health, as promoted by all sincere practitioners in all all schools of the healing arts, I pass on this kind of information along.
==============================================
The following is fact #1.
BTW, I have no idea if the information in this essay is valid, or not. Or if it is just a rant. If you think it is just a rant I will not pass on the other nine "Facts..." and you are free to remove this one.

Quote:
Exposed: 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You're Not Supposed to Know (opinion)
by Mike Adams

(Natural News) With Breast Cancer Awareness month fully upon us once again, retail stores have been invaded with everything pink, including "pink ribbon" candies and personal care products made with blatantly cancer-causing ingredients. Retail grocery stores like Safeway even hit up customers for donations at the cash register, promising to raise funds to find "the cure for cancer."

Consumers of course, have virtually no idea where the funds they donate actually go, nor do they know the truths about breast cancer they'll never be told by conventional cancer non-profit organizations. In this article, I'll reveal ten important myths about breast cancer, and the truths that can save your life.

Myth #1: Breast Cancer is not preventable

The Truth: Up to 98% of breast cancer cases can be prevented through diet, nutritional supplements, sunshine and exercise

It's true: Breast cancer can be almost entirely prevented through commonsense changes in diet, the addition of anti-cancer nutritional supplements, boosting vitamin D creation from sunlight, avoiding exposure to toxic chemicals in consumer products, pursuing regular exercise and eating a live foods diet.

The breast cancer industry -- which depends on the continuation of cancer for its profits and employment -- has so far refused to teach women even basic cancer prevention strategies (such as increasing the intake of vitamin D, which prevents 77% of all cancers). See: http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html