Idealism

Lunitik said:
I am not even particularly interested in dead scriptures, your interpretation of scripture is utterly irrelevant if you have not know what is being pointed at experientially.

It is the situation in the religious organizations that the blind are leading the blind today, many priests actually condemn seeking God yourself.

For me, Moses is just a man. For me, Krishna is just a man. For me, Sidhartha was just a man. For me, Jesus was just a man. They are normal men with only one difference: they are awake, are are Buddhas. I am interested in Buddhahood, not emulating a Buddha because of false promises or because I was born into a certain prison. None of the men listed have restricted themselves to the prisons of their time, Jesus was killed exactly because he hasn't catered to the status quo, but now, his rebellion towards truth has become a disgusting thing, it has become an organized lie - and it is the same for each of the men listed.

Buddha has killed, Krishna has had 16,000 women, Moses was utterly insane wandering in a desert for 40 years, Jesus has cursed a bush and whipped animals - not to mention how he treated his birth mother. I have no idea why these are the people we look to for spiritual guidance, although they have certainly provided pointers. There are far greater religious people through the history of man, these are quite poor choices for me.
Click to expand...

How do you know they were not incarnated beings sent from the heavenly kingdom?
 
In the USA it is difficult to live without an internal combustion vehicle. Toyota sells quality pickup trucks. They sell me a truck, so then I receive from them a durable good. That makes me dependent upon them, because I don't know how to make pickup trucks. Therefore Toyota is doing me harm. They should be teaching me how to make my own truck. Is that right?

Now I send rice to Africa, because I hear someone is starving. Therefore I am doing them harm, because I should be teaching them to make rice instead. Same idea?
 
donnann said:
How do you know they were not incarnated beings sent from the heavenly kingdom?
Click to expand...

How do I know something ridiculous isn't true? Well, because I have experienced their true station... I can see with each where their enlightenment has happened, and their practices are no different to others walking the same path. Jesus has achieved in the desert, for instance, while fasting. The is quite like Buddha's enlightenment, although it doesn't directly say because it goes against the whole faith - if Jesus has learned, you can reach him, but the whole power structure of the faith depends on his station being impossible to reach.
 
Dream said:
In the USA it is difficult to live without an internal combustion vehicle. Toyota sells quality pickup trucks. They sell me a truck, so then I receive from them a durable good. That makes me dependent upon them, because I don't know how to make pickup trucks. Therefore Toyota is doing me harm. They should be teaching me how to make my own truck. Is that right?

Now I send rice to Africa, because I hear someone is starving. Therefore I am doing them harm, because I should be teaching them to make rice instead. Same idea?
Click to expand...

Certainly.
 
Donnann, I believe your analogy quite appropriate. What we experience is the key. And thise experiences are not universal, which is why the Divine has incorporated in so many forms, so many times.

Peace, brother... radarmark
 
radarmark said:
Donnann, I believe your analogy quite appropriate. What we experience is the key. And thise experiences are not universal, which is why the Divine has incorporated in so many forms, so many times.
Click to expand...

Every single person can experience the divine, we have simply clung to a few that have reached. These men have talked about their own experience, and so they seem different but they are not at all. If you ignore terminology or at least correlate, you can see they are all discussing exactly the same thing. What they point to is always the same, but these men are individuals so their expression is different.

Find your own expression instead of trying to emulate another.
 
Ah, but is not that what this existence is all about? It seems as if you also speak from your own expression.

Circles within cirles and wheels within wheels....

Pax et amore vincunt omnia... radarmark
 
radarmark said:
Ah, but is not that what this existence is all about? It seems as if you also speak from your own expression.

Circles within cirles and wheels within wheels....

Pax et amore vincunt omnia... radarmark
Click to expand...

Certainly, it is exactly what it is about, finding our own way to divinity... walking the path of another is not going to help at all, though. It simply isn't natural to cling to another persons experience, you remove your own uniqueness and nature loves uniqueness.
 
I thnik we are using "idealism" in two quite different ways here. I am thinking of idealiam as a opposite-but-complementary philosophical school to materialism. I believe you are thinking of idealism as that motivating "pie in the sky idealists".

While I reject idealism (I believe there is more in the universe than just one big consciousness) and materialism (ther is likewise more to the universe than my own consciousness being the aftermath of the Habanero salsa and chips I had last night), I find the second sense of idealism quite wonderful. Better to be an idealist than a pessimist, better to believe in something (say the natural rights of each individual) than nothing, better to naively believe that I can accomplish something (be it loving my kitty better than anyone ever loved her or helping to end the Neocon nazism of the Bush-II years).

You can call me a "cock-eyed idealist" I guess.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia... radarmark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top