L
Lunitik
Guest
What have any of them said that surpasses GoT?
Please cite examples as simple and beautiful as what Thomas has written.
human nature - inherently good or evil?
- Thread starter IowaGuy
- Start date
What have any of them said that surpasses GoT?
Please cite examples as simple and beautiful as what Thomas has written.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Why the need for "thus"?
It is scientific fact that all atoms are 99.99999999999% empty, you have turned it into something philosophical but it is simply the case. This is naught but projection...
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
here are links to a couple of sites with "out of copywright" texts.
Free Christian Mystic Books The Quaker Mystics
Free Christian Mystic Books The Quaker Mystics
L
Lunitik
Guest
"It is tragic how few people ever ‘possess their souls’ before they die… Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation..."
This is something I go on saying, very valuable for people to understand in themselves...
Nothing I am seeing on these sites comes close to Thomas though, sorry. They are very much unconscious statements of devotion, they appeal to the mind but not the heart/soul. When I read something of the spirit, there is a tingle throughout and literally illumination spots around my line of vision - it has become a great guiding for me - these texts are utterly dead.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Atoms are full of space.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Thomas and I experience it quite different. In the time you have had all you could have done is read or skimmed. Do you want (a) poetry, (b) mystical teachings, (c) rules for living, or (d) a description of their experience. Let me know, this will take time to research.
I live with these (and other) texts, dissect and live them so (1) I can understand how my experiences fit in with others' or (2) I can get triggered.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
I live with these (and other) texts, dissect and live them so (1) I can understand how my experiences fit in with others' or (2) I can get triggered.
Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hmm, let's see what happens when space is compressed down by temporarily straightjacketing Lunitik into a ZIP file, and see if he is inherently good or inherently evil while straightjacketed...
Last edited:
L
Lunitik
Guest
a and b please
I see a bunch of descriptions of events, and statements about religion which are not useful... if you would like to show me what you consider valuable in these links, I would be grateful.
(note that for me, poetry is not simply rhyming verses, for me, poetry is the language of the heart - it tends to be incoherent if you attempt to understand it literally because it is an attempt to describe something which our language cannot express well in any other way)
L
Lunitik
Guest
You cannot be inherently a concept... neither good nor evil exist in any substantiated way, they are a description of our perception - and they differ from culture to culture!
As for atoms being filled with space, I agree because there is no difference in the statements. It is like the instance of the cup, is it half full or half empty? It is neither, it is simply in between the extremes of full and empty... it says something about the perceptions of the person how they will describe it, but in reality neither is correct - nothing about words is a reality, they only point - arguing semantics is boring.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
And you need the space in order to make sense of what you perceive. (In Buddhism, space/form is associated with consciousness.
*doh* Wait until you hit your midlife crisis! The semantics of half-empty/half-full won't be so boring then!
L
Lunitik
Guest
And you need the space in order to make sense of what you perceive. (In Buddhism, space/form is associated with consciousness.
Again, Buddhism and Science agreeing, only that in Science they say energy and Buddhism says consciousness. Matter is merely dense energy according to modern science, Buddha seems to have realized this and said it according to his own understanding/language.
I do not see this will affect me, every day I am aware that tomorrow I may be dead, that today may be my last on this planet. This is what midlife crisis is about, thinking you have missed experiences in life and wanting to engage in them all before it is too late - they are about regretting missed opportunities and finding them again. I do not live like this, I take any opportunities I can and do not regret anything that happens - I see it as the only possible way things could have gone.
Mind is a constant doubter, act with intuition and leave mind out of the affair and automatically there can be no regrets because you will not doubt anything. Now you miss nothing, you know you have been total in everything and things could not have been different. Without an emphasis on future or past, midlife crisis are simply impossible. Now, only the present of now matters - this very second is a gift, but constantly mind causes us to miss it.
You do judge, and in person I would be especially disappointed if you didn't.
I'd say you have yet to recognize some limitations with your perspective and the resulting fabrications (assumptions).
So if someone advises something from their perspective, then you have no perspective, but will just mechanically emphasize the opposite. That is interesting. I do not see anything good with that behavior. So then if a person emphasizes honesty, you will emphasize some dishonesty. If a person emphasizes faith, then you will emphasize having control. If a person emphasizes forgiving, then you will emphasize punishment. You think that truth is somewhere between these extremes? Your approach is to be mechanically reactive, and in doing so I'd say that your words are not your words, and you are not taking responsibility for what you say.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Then be disappointed, it is none of my concern.
Why don't you explain some to me, then?
Either I will accept and grow through your recognition of these things, or I can show why your perspective is flawed - either way there is the possibility of taking the conversation towards something beneficial.
If you go to one extreme, to correct it I must pull in the other direction. Now, over the course of the discussion, we will arrive in the center but it will not be that I have been stubborn so your ego will not be offended - you will see it as a compromise and be grateful that both have gained.
My whole approach is to respond to whatsoever is happening, to remain inwardly centered. You are correct, often I cannot be responsible for my words, they are a mirroring of your own statements - just like in a mirror, everything is reversed and reflected back. Words are a way to communicate, you cannot possess them so saying "they are not your words" is irrelevant - they simply can never be yours.
You have been sharing your judgment over massive groups of people: Eastern and Western hemispheres, and upon individuals here. It is interesting that you deny this.
I thought you understood this. I can't show you why your perspective is flawed. All I can do is point. If you wish to see what I see, then you should do what I do. If I wish to see what you see, then I should do what you do.
You think you can correct someone else. I think you can only judge and grade per your viewpoint. A center or common ground is usually sought between people, but you claim to have it. I do not seek to be part good and part evil.
As I see it, you are indwardly conflicted.
Your words are yours because they come from you. However, if you have parroted or mirrored someone elses words, without comparing and testing with your perspective, then you are merely revealing yourself to be a parrot, or a mirror. Do you think that is what Jesus or Buddha did? 'Never' and 'irrelevant' are rather extreme, so what happened to your alleged center?
L
Lunitik
Guest
They are not judgments at all, they are devices based on a particular observation. If you seem to be of Western thought - which you are - I will go on pushing you to the East, if I see something of ego or similar I will push on it to make it more obvious.
It works the other way as well though, I will push Eastern thinkers towards the West - only the combination is a totality, only the integration is authentic.
I have asked you to point because I think you will find simply in trying to justify how these are choices that none exists in reality. No one should ever emulate another though, there is nothing authentic about emulation. For one, even if you emulate exactly, you will not understand why the other is doing it - you will be bringing yourself into it.
I cannot correct, I can simply attempt to cause you to correct yourself by seeing how the other side might also be valid. It is not about being half and half, it is a realization that both are invalid, it is to become whole. Much of what you have said is about being half, you should be giving and compromise and all these different divisions you see no problem with. You know evil to be wrong though, so you do not want to be half that - I simply say there is no such thing as good, it is in your mind only.
This is not uncommon, it is because from the center it is equal distance to any periphery - and interaction is exactly that, a peripheral event.
That's just it, words do not come from you at all, society has taught them to you and now you understand how to utilize them. I must use them to convey things to you, so it will seem like I am going into extremes but it is simply the flaw in this method of communication.
Yes, certainly Buddha will have mirrored what the other has said - this is plainly obvious in instances such as where he has told atheists there is a God and theists there is no God, always he is trying to cause the dropping of conclusions in the unattained. Jesus' whole method is different, you cannot really compare the two. Jesus teaches to go on growing in love so you can become nothingness, Buddha teaches to become nothingness so you can attain the whole. They are going in completely opposite directions, but both will come to the same place in the end. Even Jesus says to return to being as a child though, he simply doesn't appear to offer any devices for doing so... as if he simply expects you to know he references innocence, a lack of ready conclusions.
The books that put those sayings in a typological, analogical and anagogical context.
God bless,
Thomas
Actually, two things:
The first is most telling:
The wheel is a symbol that lies in a single, horizontal, plane — it is a circle in which the fullness of its being is explored, but never transcended.
The second, I realise, is something about you, which I shall not publish, suffice to say it explains your sense of your own infallibility — you pick the wheel because you see your self as the centre of the cosmos, all being relates to your being.
With regard to symbols (as opposed to imagery) I would suggest the cross, which not only 'covers' the wheel, but brings out the axis upon which the wheel turns, allowing a pan- (as opposed to two-) dimensional activity, as well as opening up a meta-cosmology.
According to René Guénon, perhaps the foremost esoterist and metaphysician of the last couple of centuries, in most traditional doctrines the cross symbolises the realisation of 'Universal Man'.
The cross clearly represents the manner of achievement of this realisation by the perfect communion of all states of the being, harmoniously and conformably ranked, in integral expansion, in the double sense of "amplitude" and "exaltation".
This expansion of the being (and the eventual transcendence of being itself) takes place horizontally at the level or degree of existence, and vertically in the hierarchical superimposition of all the degrees (by incorporation into the highest, the Logos).
The horizontal represents "amplitude", or integral extension of the individuality taken as basis for realisation (in Christianity, it also signifies inclusion, in the arms spread wide), and the vertical represents hierarchy, likewise and a fortiori indefinite, of the multiples states of being.
Another view of the cross, defined by the equator and the line going through the poles, is tridimensional, linked to the six directions of space and the centre of the cross, through a symbolism that appears notably in the Hebraic kabbalah in relation to the "mystery of unity", in Christian mystagogy, and in Hindu doctrines as well (cf Romans 8:38).
Then, the symbol of the cross may develop according to different points of view: "union of the complements", with the vertical line representing the active principle and the horizontal line the passive principle, hence establishing an application of the general consideration of Purusha-Prakriti, Essence-Substance, the "resolution of the opposites", symbolized by the central point which corresponds to what Islamic esoterism calls the "Divine station", namely "that which combines contrasts and antinomies" (al-mâqam lillahi huwa mâqam ijtima 'al-diddâin): this station (mâqam), or degree of the being's effective realization, is attained by al-fanâ', that is, by the "extinction" of the ego in the return to the "primordial state"; such "extinction", writes René Guénon, even as regards the literal meaning of the term denoting it, is not without analogy to the Nirvâna of the Buddhist doctrine.
Beyond al-fanâ', there is still fanâ al-fanâ', the "extinction of the extinction", which similarly corresponds to "Parinirvâna". In the Far-Eastern tradition, the central point is called the "Invariable Middle" (Ching-Yin) which is the place of perfect equilibrium, represented as the center of the 'cosmic wheel', and is also, at the same time, the point where the 'Activity of Heaven' is directly manifested. This center directs all things by its "actionless activity" (wei wu wei), which although unmanifested, or rather because it is unmanifested, is in reality the plenitude of activity, since it is the activity of the Principle whence all activities are derived; Guénon notes that this has been expressed by Lao Tzu as follows: "The Principle is always actionless, yet everything is done by It". This "Invariable Middle" is also the locus of "Peace in the void", corresponding to what Islamic esoterism calls the "Great Peace".
The Symbolism of the Cross
+++
No, quite true, but then, if you're not, it's irrelevant, isn't it? It's totally out of its paradigmatic context.
The appeal of the GoT is that it can mean anything you want it to.
Lunitik, sometimes you say things which demonstrate just how little you know about what you presume to be an authority on ...
Sadly, as you yourself have stated, you're not here to learn. And I'm not here to waste my time, and the list would exhaust the post word-count, and your patience, and you'd not understand a fraction of it, anyway.
Off the top of my head, anything from the Philokalia, let's see how poor an opinion you have of that ...
God bless,
Thomas
L
Lunitik
Guest
@Thomas
1) The wheel is a metaphor that delivers the imagery in a better way... if I try to use a sphere for the example it becomes more complicated.
2) The Bible says God is within each of us, that is the center of the wheel.
I will never choose the cross as a meaningful symbol, it is a murder device. The whole Christianity emphasizes it though, his sacrifice for you. It is to create a guilt so you will feel something for Jesus. The swastika is equally valid and far more ancient, I do not use that either though out of respect for Jews.
You don't understand, I have attained what your scriptures point to, why go back to scriptures? It is utterly bizarre to even consider. I am here to discuss ramifications of that, not to discover it. I am open to any insights you have from there, but that is not what you keep trying to discuss... you are attempting to educate me on Catholicism, I am simply not interested in that. I am interested in individual wisdom, what people have discovered outside those texts. If I wanted to read things you are quoting, I would just go to the source.
1) The wheel is a metaphor that delivers the imagery in a better way... if I try to use a sphere for the example it becomes more complicated.
2) The Bible says God is within each of us, that is the center of the wheel.
I will never choose the cross as a meaningful symbol, it is a murder device. The whole Christianity emphasizes it though, his sacrifice for you. It is to create a guilt so you will feel something for Jesus. The swastika is equally valid and far more ancient, I do not use that either though out of respect for Jews.
You don't understand, I have attained what your scriptures point to, why go back to scriptures? It is utterly bizarre to even consider. I am here to discuss ramifications of that, not to discover it. I am open to any insights you have from there, but that is not what you keep trying to discuss... you are attempting to educate me on Catholicism, I am simply not interested in that. I am interested in individual wisdom, what people have discovered outside those texts. If I wanted to read things you are quoting, I would just go to the source.
L
Lunitik
Guest
I am beginning to see this is a futile activity, it is an interfaith forum yet everyone goes on trying to say what is better about their particular faith. I can show through any religious text what I am saying, yet because it is not exactly aligned to any particular group, all will dispute what is said. I am bringing a synthesize to what I thought was a neutral forum, I am clearly mistaken.
Right now, the agreements are utterly on the periphery on these boards, whereas the real synthesis is at the very core. Through this, it cannot be that there is disagreement, it will simply be that it shows someone that has not arrived. Social behaviors are going to differ, every faith has been delivered to divergent peoples so the laws have echoed what is acceptable there. We can understand how these laws have come to be though if we do arrive at that core.
Then, that is all interfaith is really about isn't it? It is about becoming cordial and understanding of others, it is not about realizing every difference you imagine is simply false. I do not understand why such people are on an interfaith forum though, they should be on a forum that is more closed minded - uhh, more specific.
Right now, the agreements are utterly on the periphery on these boards, whereas the real synthesis is at the very core. Through this, it cannot be that there is disagreement, it will simply be that it shows someone that has not arrived. Social behaviors are going to differ, every faith has been delivered to divergent peoples so the laws have echoed what is acceptable there. We can understand how these laws have come to be though if we do arrive at that core.
Then, that is all interfaith is really about isn't it? It is about becoming cordial and understanding of others, it is not about realizing every difference you imagine is simply false. I do not understand why such people are on an interfaith forum though, they should be on a forum that is more closed minded - uhh, more specific.