And I have stated why I believe your assumption has missed the vital part.
Then I have missed it, feel free to further elucidate.
I do not discuss my personal life here. The point is however, that if the higher realms are 'haphazard, chaotic or anarchic' then any dialogue is void because nothing can be meaningfully said about anything, can it, because nothing is certain or lasting.
I am suggesting there is no "higher realm", if you know better, then that is fine. Where there is plurality, it is necessary that there be the appearance of chaos. If there were higher realms of existence, they would comply with the same laws as this realm - ie, that of course and effect, theory of relativity, karma. Does it trouble you that there is no meaning to existence, that it simply is because it is? All existence is impermanent, ever changing. In Hindu philosophy, for example, existence as we know it is merely the breath of Brahma, the exhalation, upon inhalation existence ceases. Indeed, even Brahma will die, however, for Brahma is not the absolute. Brahma is merely the creation of Brahman, another part of existence. Beyond existence entirely is Brahman, the original cause.
Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. Many Western pop commentators, interested in selling books, would claim so, but the real deal, as it were, always stand by the fact that one's own experience has to be tested and viewed from within a traditional framework.
If not, then you're claiming infallibility.
I claim nothing, I only tell you what I have discovered. My knowledge is not complete by any stretch, thus it can only be fallible. It is impossible that it be anything else, for both my comprehension and tools for communication are limited. What I have said is still accurate within those confines however.
I spent the rest of the paragraph explaining how so...
It's not a case of true or false, rather it's in the nature of things. One man's esoterism is another man's exoterism. As someone once declared, "esoterism is too often just knowledge with an unhealthy dose of ego".
This is not what is meant by esoteric in this usage, an esoteric school is a school which is only joined through initiation. However, what you state about esoteric and exoteric is equally flawed. Every belief you have has been rationalized esoterically, all that is exoteric is the rituals which confirm it. It is necessary that you form personal ideas about all abstract concepts which you have not experienced, for you have no point of reference. It is only free from ego if you realize the ego is an illusion, otherwise it is necessarily shaped by it. The entire concept of heaven and everlasting life are functions of egotistical greed.
Well, you're welcome to your own opinion, but I view 'religion' in light of its primary purpose.
The word means "to re-bind", it can have no other purpose, for otherwise we change the root meaning of the word.
You seriously think America is conducting this conflict in defence of, and for the benefit of, Christianity?
Yes, this is confirmed simply by listening to Bush's speeches relating to God.
Ah, it annoyed them no end, especially as what He was saying they knew to be true.
Did they? I am sure they held their traditions just as firmly as Christians do today.
Oh dear, is this sarcasm again?
Somewhat, however the question is still valid, show me that Christ has never left. In Buddhist and Hindu traditions it is easy to see, for there are living Buddha's and Brahman's to this day, I am unaware of any Christ's on earth.
OK. And at what point is God 'removed'? And where to, may I ask?
God was not there, for he is a view. Satori is the experience of the ultimate, the interconnected consciousness of the Universe. All concepts that confirm plurality must be dropped to know it, through a belief in God as separate, we maintain a dual mind... the Bible itself tells us this is not so, for it says we have our being in God, we are a part of God. Religion is about realizing this through experiencing it, knowing that all insistence on individuality is against this oneness.
Oh good grief! You mean you have something better to do? Or you're more important than God?
There is a metaphysical condition called 'rest', which means a given nature has attained its perfection ... what more can it do? Nothing. What more can it be? Nothing. Where else can it go? ... I assume you get the point.
I think I already answer this in the previous stanza, after physical life ceases there is no longer a boundary unless you insist on it. In Western thought, if you insist on clinging to individuality you are reborn, if you reach Moksha or Nirvana, you understand this is unnecessary and merge utterly with God, Brahman, the interconnected. There is no longer a you at all, it can perhaps be said that being reborn is a form of hell in these beliefs, for life is an endless cycle of suffering. It is inevitable that we suffer if we remain distinct.
It's only humanity, locked in its contingency, that aks the questions you are asking, or makes the assumptions you are making.
I beg to differ, rather, it only humanity that wishes to believe they will live forever, we are obsessed with death, with ceasing to be what we perceive we are. Religion is about realizing this fallacy, about realizing the truth behind our delusion. If it takes us deeper into illusion, it has done harm.
No you don't, that's evidently apparent.
Honestly, it is more like a nightmare to me. Being is fun, but it gets redundant. I am grateful for the experience, but I am barely 1/3 of the way through the expected span of it. This earth is something like 4.5 billion years old, I cannot fathom it. I certainly do not wish to experience this kind of longevity.
Sounds like you've never met a decent Christian. Or maybe your prejudice blinds you to the truth.
Superficial means surface deep, they may act as they perceive saintly people should, but nothing genuine is attained. I recently attended a Catholic baptism, during this ceremony the higher three energy centers are included in the ritual. When asking the priest if he knew what they meant, he had no idea the significance. Christianity points at spiritual practice, but it has lost its knowledge of it.
Wrong. If that were the case, there'd be no doctrine on sin, or sanctity, would there?
Christians are taught we are all sinners, that sin is unavoidable. You deny this? If you do, explain the need for repentance. On Catholic television, priests and bishops confess their own trials and need for forgiveness, justifying their sins variously as unavoidable. This is what I mean, and my statement is certainly true.
Yes, Buddha is a human state (Enlightened). Christ is a divine state. In Christianity, you are taught to be 'in Christ' which is to be 'in God'. Can't get higher than that.
What you see as an avoidance, is actually a transcendence, it's just that you've missed the point by making certain erroneous suppositions.
Enlightenment is variously described as "enjoining with God" by various schools that hold such beliefs, however the difference is that one maintains plurality, while the other teaches the realization of oneness. Jesus was a mere man, not unlike Sidhartha... Christ and Buddha are their attainment, their enlightenment. To hold that they are something else, that there status is unattainable by men, is to limit ourselves or glorify them. This is an act of egotism, making oneself distinct among peers. At the same time, I fully accept that both have merged with God, are after Enlightenment essentially God's on earth. This is the error of the Christian Church, however, through giving power to men which have not attained this state to define it, they have not understood it. They are devotee's of Christ, but they are not enlightened men, they cannot be for their explanations prove their lack of understanding.
