human nature - inherently good or evil?

[Lunitik]

The chief difference between Jesus and your grandfather that luecy7 didn't seem to have pointed out is that you weren't alive when Jesus was around. How can you love Jesus in the same way as your grandfather?

You could not possibly have met Jesus like you could your grandfather. Your grandfather gave you gifts, Jesus didn't. How can you love someone you never knew?

Not like my grandfather, you are perfectly correct, I have not known Jesus in the physical form. I have met him and all other spiritual contemporaries through my encounter with the ultimate, however. These seem like strange statements, but I know each ones inward state, I know them deeper than I have known any physical form because all physical forms are different one second to the next. They have all reached to the same heights, all lost themselves in the same ocean. I know that everything unique about them is their own expression of the same thing. Intimately, I am utterly familiar with them, the relationship is closer than with my grandfather in fact, there is a deeper understanding there.

I love my mother a great deal, but it is not the same. Much of what she does and says I do not understand at all, but every action of Jesus I completely understand - what I say in this thread is to cause you to question your idealized view of him, but I can explain why he has done these things I am picking out as well. His anger in the temple is his compassion, his treatment of the fig tree is love. Anger is naught but the opposite pole of compassion, they are the same thing in fact. With the fig tree, it is a paternal love, he is hurt that the tree is not prospering. Now it will return to the earth and become something else, it can have a fresh start. There is a deeper understanding, a deeper connection even than with the women that gave birth to me.

 

[luecy7]

The difference is this man is mentally ill...

Aren't we all in the eyes of others?

lol... you are the one regarding them as physical entities... they are merely dense pockets of energy.

Energy is physical.

Yes, and this is a sickness, choosing.

The soul is not necessarily sick, and neither are the choices. To be loving, to have faith, to be honest, are choices that require the soul.

This is the whole nature of insanity, rejecting one side of you and empowering another. Everything you reject will go deeper and deeper into your unconscious and eventually it will explode - then you lose your sanity because you are lost in these obsessions, your mind becomes stuck.

So you have experience? Yes you do. According to your words you have rejected the heart for the mind. The solution is not to reject the mind, but to increase the do. Do good. Do love. Do give. Do serve. Do rebuke. Do forgive. Do seek. Do confess. Do embrace others in relationships. To Do minimally requires using the brain and heart.

When I say mind, I mean thoughts and ego, when you say mind you include consciousness.

When I say mind, I mean the physical brain and any and all conscious and unconscious activity in it. The brain is not necessarily the origination of thoughts. I make very little distinction between brain and mind, but thoughts can come from many people, genes, experience, and spirits. The subconscious can similarly be put to task.

I can say that consciousness is not of mind because you can watch mind with consciousness.

I was raised with the ice-berg image. Consciousness is the portion of brain that you see on top. Subconscious is the portion of your brain activity that you don't see.

This is your fundamental problem with understanding me. Mind is always the "no", heart is always the "yes", these are perfectly equal in reality, but the no empowers ego.

By your words for love, faith, and honesty, it appears your mind has been the "yes", and the heart has been the "no".

If you can act totally through consciousness, without bringing mind into the situation, you will actually find that you perform BETTER than if mind goes on trying to decipher this and that. I do not mean autopilot either, I have made this mistake before in describing it. It is simply that you respond to everything with an awareness. Drinking alcohol simply takes you into a deeper unconsciousness, but you are comparably unconscious right now compared to the enlightened ones.

To the contrary, there is far more at play than what we see. By your words you really wish to be conscious of everything, and having a little you want more. You wish to see everything. You don't like for there to be something unconscious and away from your view. What is unconscious to us is still conscious to others, including God. Like a subconscious mind you consider me to be a motor boat, a voice of dissension towards what you seek. I am happy with the fact that there is a great deal of mind that I am unconscious of. I might similarly look into someone's eyes and have zero clue of what they are thinking. I can and I do make use of the unconscious mind, and the conscious minds of others, by asking questions and setting it to task.

What else do you call wanting something in return for what you have given? That is exactly manipulation, causing others to behave a certain way by way of your own actions.

What do I want?

No, I suggest that the give and take you see as love is nothing of the sort.

I consider it wrong to take, and good to ask and seek agreement.

 

[IowaGuy]

Nothing in this life is absolutely bad or good, no act... all acts are ultimately irrelevant, temporary.

So the act of raping another person, or abusing a child, is not absolutely bad or good; and is ultimately irrelevant?

Sounds like existential nihlism to me, not Bodhi. Maybe you've been reading too much Nietzsche.

 

[ciel_perdy]

lunitik wrote:

Was Jesus humble, loving? He judged quite outwardly, aggressively. For me, this act is exactly hypocritical. You have stated some of his judgments to justify his actions, this is quite telling - clearly you love him so you do not want to see his flaws, you do not see him as a full person.

Jesus taught that man should not judge by outward appearance, but judge 'righteous' judgment. I think you are trying to hard to find fault in Jesus. You are judging Jesus by your own limited human reasoning. You question his humility and love, based on your own prejudices of what loving and humility are, and your own bias on judgment. Aside from some heavy criticism's that he gave, your only basis to say he was a hypocrite is based on how you feel about such things.

With regards to the title of this thread. Inherently evil or not, I think being greedy, lazy, selfish, proud, etc is pretty easy and doesn't take much effort, but being loving, kinds, generous etc, takes effort. This is my own experience. While the former is easy, it is also hard in the sense it ruins our lives, and while the latter is in many ways harder (because it does go against a large part of our nature), it is also easier, in that trying to be loving etc actually brings joy and peace, and life.

 

[Lunitik]

Aren't we all in the eyes of others?

I am not discussion perceptions, I am saying he is measurably insane - any psychologist or doctor would confirm it.

Energy is physical.

You like arguing this point, let me replace it with "material".

Physical means "of or relating to mind" according to the dictionary, the energy does not originate in mind, mind is a result of the energy. This is a topic which is off topic though.

The soul is not necessarily sick, and neither are the choices. To be loving, to have faith, to be honest, are choices that require the soul.

The soul is not real, so it cannot be sick. Choices are always sick because of the process of choosing, you are picking half at most - perhaps there are more choices, then it is a choice even less than half. You cannot love with half your being, it must be total. Faith, again, not something that can be half. Honesty simply cannot exist in half, if it is not completely true it is a lie.

You are right though, the perception of choice, the confusion is from soul. Soul is ego is mind, totality is only possible through heart.

So you have experience? Yes you do. According to your words you have rejected the heart for the mind. The solution is not to reject the mind, but to increase the do. Do good. Do love. Do give. Do serve. Do rebuke. Do forgive. Do seek. Do confess. Do embrace others in relationships. To do requires, minimally: brain and heart.

How have you concluded that I have dropped heart for mind? No, I am simply saying that with you these things are coming from mind instead of heart. Heart does not have motives, it does not have purpose, it simply does. Mind is always planning, very cunning, always it wants to find that which will be most beneficial.

How can you do if mind is still considering which is better to do? No, it is heart that jumps, that decides that mind is being stupid and dives into doing.

When I say mind, I mean the physical brain and any and all conscious and unconscious activity in it. The brain is not necessarily the origination of thoughts. I make very little distinction between brain and mind, but thoughts can come from many people, genes, experience, and spirits. The subconscious can similarly be put to task.

See, you can be conscious of the activity, but consciousness is not of brain. Many mystics say body-mind - they make no distinction at all. Unconsciousness is simply the result of repression, suppression, this is dangerous. Consciousness is not mind, consciousness is a drop of the ultimate.

I was raised with the ice-berg image. Consciousness is the portion of brain that you see on top. Subconscious is the portion of your brain activity that you don't see.

Then what is watching mind? When you are up late at night trying to sleep and mind keeps on racing, what is observing that mind won't quiet itself? Whatever you call this, this is what I refer to as consciousness.

This is another problem, you don't try to understand what is being said, you are too much stuck on your current set of concepts - it makes it difficult to communicate with you.

By your words for love, faith, and honesty, it appears your mind has been the "yes", and the heart has been the "no".

I am guessing this is a perception founded on something I corrected above, you have gotten it backwards though.

To the contrary, there is far more at play than what we see. By your words you really wish to be conscious of everything, and having a little you want more. You don't like for there to be something unconscious and away from your view. What is unconscious to us is still conscious to others, including God. Like an unconscious mind you consider me to be a motor boat, a voice of dissension towards what you seek. I am happy with the fact that there is a great deal of mind that I am unconscious of. I might look into someone's eyes and have zero clue of what they are thinking. I can and I do make use of the unconscious mind, the conscious minds of others, by asking questions and setting it to task.

I am simply responding to you, I have no perception of your motives whatsoever. I am trying to help you through my words, but you do not yet understand so more dialog must be maintained. I am seeking no result, I only perceive in you a certain interest which I am glad to be subject to.

Also, because I repress nothing, because I act totally, there is nothing which occurs unconsciously. I cannot allow it to be moved into the unconscious because as you say this too you are responsible for. You are free to test this as much as you please.

What do I want?

You tell me, what are you hoping to get in return from friends?

I consider it wrong to take, and good to ask and seek agreement.

Nothing is as plain as simply labeling it as wrong, through compromise though, you are settling for half. You should not impede on others, they must be willing, but when you start cutting yourself into sections you are planting the seeds of enmity, both will be unhappy because neither has gotten what they want.

You will say this is selfish, you are perfectly right if we analyse the word: it simply means being yourself. Whenever you are not authentic, you are committing a crime against yourself. Jesus says love your neighbor as yourself, you cannot love another unless you love yourself first though. Through compromise you are saying you are not worthy of being fully content, half is all you're worth.

 

[Lunitik]

So the act of raping another person, or abusing a child, is not absolutely bad or good; and is ultimately irrelevant?

Sounds like existential nihlism to me, not Bodhi. Maybe you've been reading too much Nietzsche.

No, the acts are not absolutely bad or good...

Why though? It is because sometimes these things are not done consciously, it is more an exhaustion of all their repression.

Rape and abuse are disgusting, but it is all of societies fault the act has happened, we have allowed people to become this unhealthy. In a crowd, a person can become utterly unconscious, entirely lost to it. In the riots of the Arab world recently, many reports of this type have happened... it is certainly disgusting, but it is easily understandable why it has happened: these people fight sex all the time, they have to always hold things in, now there is an outlet so they lose themselves to it.

I am not justifying, please understand me, I am simply saying it is not as clear cut as you think - you have provided the examples for me to work with. In our courts, we will not put someone into prison if they can be proven to have suffered temporary insanity... this is exactly the situation often with such acts.

Of course, there are those who commit these acts purposely, they will plot and become excited by the power they are going to assert over the other. Here, it is certainly bad, for me these people should die just as a premeditated murder is subject to capitol punishment. It is perhaps a worse crime, in fact, because the dead person suffers no more, but the victim must suffer as long as they live.

 

[Lunitik]

It is the same in child abuse, maybe the parent is repressed at work, too much feeling out of control and like a slave, maybe they feel mistreated but they need the work so they have to accept it.

I can speak from my own life, my mother was in an abusive relationship for a couple years. She felt utterly helpless about it, and so she has put up with it. Instead, though, she needed to exhaust it, so she turned to me: chasing me around with anything hard within reach. Now, can I blame my mother for this?

It is not only what is happening on the surface that is important, if she just liked inflicting pain on me it would be completely wrong, but this is not the case. Such things need treatment, not punishment, the parent or rapist in these situations is as much a victim as their own victims. You cannot say their acts are wrong because they have not been totally aware of what they are doing, they have lost themselves into it, they are literally insane in that moment. We recognize this in murder, if an abused wife kills her husband she will have no punishment. If the murderer has become insane in the act, we do not punish either. We have restricted this understanding to only murder though, why?

 

[Lunitik]

Jesus taught that man should not judge by outward appearance, but judge 'righteous' judgment. I think you are trying to hard to find fault in Jesus. You are judging Jesus by your own limited human reasoning. You question his humility and love, based on your own prejudices of what loving and humility are, and your own bias on judgment. Aside from some heavy criticism's that he gave, your only basis to say he was a hypocrite is based on how you feel about such things.

With regards to the title of this thread. Inherently evil or not, I think being greedy, lazy, selfish, proud, etc is pretty easy and doesn't take much effort, but being loving, kinds, generous etc, takes effort. This is my own experience. While the former is easy, it is also hard in the sense it ruins our lives, and while the latter is in many ways harder (because it does go against a large part of our nature), it is also easier, in that trying to be loving etc actually brings joy and peace, and life.

What I have said is for a particular purpose, please do not see too much into it unless you are following along with the whole dialog. In this case, I am attempting to show the flaw in clinging to Jesus, seeing the whole world as plainly black and white.

I have explained this in another thread better, but the way many Christians are taught to think they must become hypocrites to justify his actions. This is what I am trying to make them aware of.

 

[radarmark]

This is where we part company. I believe ethics are separate from religion (an atheist or agnostic can lead a good life). It seems that (for me at least) the principle of "doing good" from Socrates to Bentham is pretty much summed up in the principle of "do the most good" and it is actions, not intentions that matter.

If you focus on intentions you get garbage results like "I was ordered to do it" (there go the Nuremberg trials or "G!d told me to do it" (there go the Tate-LaBianca trials). It is actions that matter (that impact the world). That is why children and the mentally deficient are not stictly accountable in common law. But the actions of a Speck or Damler (who were both clinically insane, I believe) do warrent them being locked up forever.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark

 

[Lunitik]

This is where we part company. I believe ethics are separate from religion (an atheist or agnostic can lead a good life). It seems that (for me at least) the principle of "doing good" from Socrates to Bentham is pretty much summed up in the principle of "do the most good" and it is actions, not intentions that matter.

If you focus on intentions you get garbage results like "I was ordered to do it" (there go the Nuremberg trials or "G!d told me to do it" (there go the Tate-LaBianca trials). It is actions that matter (that impact the world). That is why children and the mentally deficient are not stictly accountable in common law. But the actions of a Speck or Damler (who were both clinically insane, I believe) do warrent them being locked up forever.

I certainly go the other way here, if a man is ordered to kill another or be killed himself, can you blame him for preserving his life? For me, actions are not important at all, you can be doing something which is seemingly perfectly good on the surface, but beneath the surface you can have utterly cruel intents...

Acts are very superficial, this is the point these men have been trying to make, that which is important is deeper. Nirvana is the escape from karma because all intent has ceased, it has to be so because mind has stopped, there are no longer particular motives involved. Now, whatsoever is done is utterly authentic, it comes from their awareness, a pure response.

 

[Lunitik]

You can say "well, I'd have let him kill me", these are words though, you want to seem more saintly - this is just ego in action. You are speaking hypothetically, it means nothing - you cannot know what you'd do in a situation unless you find yourself in that situation.

 

[ciel_perdy]

What I have said is for a particular purpose, please do not see too much into it unless you are following along with the whole dialog. In this case, I am attempting to show the flaw in clinging to Jesus, seeing the whole world as plainly black and white.

I have explained this in another thread better, but the way many Christians are taught to think they must become hypocrites to justify his actions. This is what I am trying to make them aware of.

Sorry, you might have to explain to me how Christians must become hypocrites in order to justify Jesus' actions, cos I'm not getting you? Thanks.

Oh, btw- I do agree with your thought about good actions can be done with the wrong motivation. I think that God looks at the motivation of man. Similarly, seemingly bad actions done with a good motivation, can work out good for the does too.

 

[radarmark]

Really, Lunitik, when someone differ with you why to have to immediately go to "you want to seem more saintly - this is just ego in action". I believe this is just demeaning yourself, you are capable of better than that. I have known men who threw on grenades. Did they do that "to seem more saintly"? Your analysis and claim is a non sequitur.

"You are speaking hypothetically, it means nothing - you cannot know what you'd do in a situation unless you find yourself in that situation." There seems to be no room for the other in your mind.

Let me make this real clear... I am a combat veteran. I raised the man who calls me "Father" to be a SEAL. We learn that it is the ethical content (the definition of legality) of an order (To Obey or Not to Obey).

Do you really imagine that that this is non-experiential for me? I have faced choices like that and have faced that actual choice in my relfexion (thoughts). Since you believe that actions are less important than intentions, my intended action calls your actuality.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark

 

[Lunitik]

Sorry, you might have to explain to me how Christians must become hypocrites in order to justify Jesus' actions, cos I'm not getting you? Thanks.

Oh, btw- I do agree with your thought about good actions can be done with the wrong motivation. I think that God looks at the motivation of man. Similarly, seemingly bad actions done with a good motivation, can work out good for the does too.

They are actually completely related, the actions towards the fig tree, what Jesus has done in the temple... these, on the surface, are completely evil acts. In the case of the Temple, you will justify his anger by saying these men are criminal, you will decide it is perfectly good to lash out at any criminal because Jesus has done it. What you may not understand is that anger is nothing but compassion on its head.

Normally, human anger does not stem from compassion, if it is purely anger then it is certainly an unforgivable act: he has committed a violence against innocent animals as well as the people. This cannot be anything but sin, it seems uncontrolled and totally unconscious if you read it just for its surface story.

Similarly, many Christians go on repressing things like the sex impulse, it is more surprising that more priests haven't been committing abuses rather than shocking that some have. They must be outwardly completely chaste, it means they will dream about sex, constantly think about sex, their whole life will revolve around it internally. You cannot get rid of a thing by pushing it down and practicing its opposite - they are not really opposite at all, what is celibacy without sex? It means nothing. They will go on saying "don't have sex before marriage!", they will go on saying "sex is sacred", yet in their mind every woman they come across they have abused through their imagination.

 

[Lunitik]

Really, Lunitik, when someone differ with you why to have to immediately go to "you want to seem more saintly - this is just ego in action". I believe this is just demeaning yourself, you are capable of better than that. I have known men who threw on grenades. Did they do that "to seem more saintly"? Your analysis and claim is a non sequitur.

"You are speaking hypothetically, it means nothing - you cannot know what you'd do in a situation unless you find yourself in that situation." There seems to be no room for the other in your mind.

Let me make this real clear... I am a combat veteran. I raised the man who calls me "Father" to be a SEAL. We learn that it is the ethical content (the definition of legality) of an order (To Obey or Not to Obey).

Do you really imagine that that this is non-experiential for me? I have faced choices like that and have faced that actual choice in my relfexion (thoughts). Since you believe that actions are less important than intentions, my intended action calls your actuality.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark

What has become offended with my words? I have hit home and ego has taken offense, it wants to defend itself. This is all I am doing here: pointing out where ego comes in to play so people can realize their imprisonment. Why do you think inner words are more meaningful than outward words? You are on these forums replying to me, so you have not allowed yourself to die to save another in real life - thus I say you still do not know what you would actually do, you have simply completed a thought in your mind through to this conclusion. There is no difference between this and the man that just says "I would do it".

Whats more, I do not call the person that has allowed himself to die brave, it is more brave to be selfish. In either case, one dies and the other lives, why not let it be you? For me, if the decision is easy, you simply do not love yourself enough... how can you love anyone though if you do not love yourself? You cannot know what love is until you first love yourself completely. Love is not something you find externally and can say "aha, this is it!", it doesn't work like that. In loving yourself, you must love your flaws, you must love without expecting anything in return, you learn an unconditional love because you are bound to let yourself down through mistakes. Once you can love yourself completely, excluding nothing about you - the whole - then you can love another. If you cannot love, I cannot call you alive so dying for another isn't brave... you have simply conceded. Giving up is the easiest thing in the world...

Jesus says "love your neighbor AS YOURSELF"... it starts with you! People mistake ego and pride for self-love, it is not so. Ego is based on positive self-image, it is a choosing, it is closed to half. Pride is closer, but still it is usually founded on comparison, you have pride in yourself because you know you are better than another. Love is unconditional, it accepts the negatives, it accepts weaknesses, it accepts the whole without trying to better anything. Sure, to survive you will need to earn a living, but ego will say "I am a combat veteran", it will identify. Yehweh - I am that I am - does not include qualifiers. It loves without labels, it doesn't take pride in accomplishments because it knew it would succeed in the first place.

I am <-- alone it is you, love that

 

[radarmark]

Now, tut tut, young'n (that is almost as patronizing as your post).

I was and am not offended. I pointed out first, that your inferrence that I would reply "well, I'd have let him kill me" was "to want to seem more saintly" was a non sequiter. Why? Because it does not follow that one would "want to seem more saintly" if one really did make the tchoice (hence the greanade example).

Second, I pointed out that your claim "You are speaking hypothetically, it means nothing - you cannot know what you'd do in a situation unless you find yourself in that situation" is in conflict with your statement that "acts are very superficial, this is the point these men have been trying to make, that which is important is deeper". Hence, since I have made that specific choice ("well, I'd have let him kill me") in a deeper, more important sense (reflexion, conscious experience) the second part of your claim "you cannot know what you'd do in a situation unless you find yourself in that situation", being but the action which you say is superficial, is inconsistent (hence the "my intended action calls your actuality" comment).

But that subtlety was obviously missed, hence "You are on these forums replying to me, so you have not allowed yourself to die to save another in real life - thus I say you still do not know what you would actually do". This nothing personal. Just note some people have a different character than you. I pretty well know what I would do in the case of fire in my home at night (grab my bride, hit the floor and get out). I pretty well know what I would do if someone with the revolver asked me to play Russian roulette (get outta there). Some of us can think through an experience or course of action and actually do not have to get burnt up or blow our brains out.

Believe me (or do not, that is your choice). If me or my son were to tell you "well, I'd have let him kill me" (which after all was just your metaphor for my original comment "I was ordered to do it, hence the post to legal orders) we most likely would... we intend to (according to your criteria of deeper being more important that action). Grok?

No, these are just verbal games. I am trying to gently point out that you need (I believe) a little more focus, a little more understanding that you do not know everything (like I admitted I did not know how to scientifically prove G!d exists), and should brush up on your rhetoric.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark

 

[Lunitik]

I was and am not offended. I pointed out first, that your inferrence that I would reply "well, I'd have let him kill me" was "to want to seem more saintly" was a non sequiter. Why? Because it does not follow that one would "want to seem more saintly" if one really did make the tchoice (hence the greanade example).

This I have attempted to explain: many feel it is wrong to be selfish, I have said it is an attempt to seem more saintly simply because that is what the honored members of the faith that teaches this are called. Look at what is being said, not how it is said.

Second, I pointed out that your claim "You are speaking hypothetically, it means nothing - you cannot know what you'd do in a situation unless you find yourself in that situation" is in conflict with your statement that "acts are very superficial, this is the point these men have been trying to make, that which is important is deeper". Hence, since I have made that specific choice ("well, I'd have let him kill me") in a deeper, more important sense (reflexion, conscious experience) the second part of your claim "you cannot know what you'd do in a situation unless you find yourself in that situation", being but the action which you say is superficial, is inconsistent (hence the "my intended action calls your actuality" comment).

You have perceived a conflict where there is none at all. Again, I am speaking about the intent behind the words, they are totally in agreement since the words are as much an act as any other doing. Instead of walking you are talking, there is not much difference, only a different part of your anatomy is doing. Reflexion is of mind, all you can say is that you've experimented with what it might be like, you have not been in the real situation.

Existence is not consistent, stop trying to find inconsistencies as a way to dispute a point. In your reflexion, you have not been in any sort of real danger, you have not had to actually risk anything, you have simply played with an idea. I have said nirvana is a dropping of intent, reflexion is nothing but the intent to delve into a query with mind. Good and bad karma are still karma, you are still gaining unnecessary baggage.

Believe me (or do not, that is your choice). If me or my son were to tell you "well, I'd have let him kill me" (which after all was just your metaphor for my original comment "I was ordered to do it, hence the post to legal orders) we most likely would... we intend to (according to your criteria of deeper being more important that action). Grok?

I can accept "most likely", certainly. You seem to be taking pride in this now though, do you think this is something honorable?

No, these are just verbal games. I am trying to gently point out that you need (I believe) a little more focus, a little more understanding that you do not know everything (like I admitted I did not know how to scientifically prove G!d exists), and should brush up on your rhetoric.

I have pointed at something through the first example that came to mind, I have not originally intended to make an argument out of the matter - I was not aware that you were a SEAL at all. You have become so attached to a simple device that you are not even trying to notice what might have been the purpose in the words. I do not claim to know everything, but everything I say points to the same truth.

That said, I do not believe in coincidences, so I hope that the discussion has some benefit for you.

 

[Thomas]

Can I ask what you have experienced?

Sorry, but I am not prepared to discuss that here, nor does my experience really matter, there are the words of others that are far more luminous than mine.

Your words simply do not echo oneness, so clearly our experiences are not similar.

I speak of nothing other than the unity of all in the Blessed Trinity, a doctrine anciently called 'theosis' or 'deification' ... when all become one, as the Trinity is One.

I see by your descriptions a cosmological one-ness ... what I am saying is that there is a greater one-ness that transcends that.

Your primary separation is between this material plane and the spiritual plane known as heaven in your tradition.

It's prior to that, even. Heaven, and the spirit realms in general, are also created.

My understanding is that this is flawed,

OK, but as I see it, you're making erroneous assumptions about what I'm saying.

even on this plane it is possible to lose yourself utterly and become indistinguishable from the whole - Maitreya Ishwara explains that he has lost all notions of personal action.

There you go then ... that is quite possible within the cosmological. Human nature is created that way.

He still responds relative to his location, this is the only difference between this plane and the beyond - there, there is no relativity. You cease to exist completely as something separate.

Then how do you exist, if I may ask?

And if one has achieved this state, how can one 'come back' from it to witness the fact, if there's nothing left in existence to testify to the fact?

I have experienced my own ceasing as if I have exploded and the beyond has entered, but it was temporary and remained relative to the bodies location. In Hinduism, there is the notion of seven planes of consciousness, but still all are part of existence... simply distinct layers you could perhaps say. My understanding is that I entered the 5th body briefly but I had not dropped ego and when it asserted itself I returned to the 4th. God is said to exist in the 7th, total void and incomprehensible from human perspective. We can enter during life, but we will perceive nothing at all and remember nothing of that place.

I don't accept that — God exists apart from all systems and structures we create to explain Him. It is common to compartmentalise God to the highest level, but really it's an error.

In the Christian tradition, God is beyond forms, the 'void' or inscrutability of God cannot be 'located' in a system or structure. Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite went into this at length, Eckhart hints at it.

My big point is that this oneness cannot be achieved or attained by personal effort, because it transcends the potentiality of human nature.

It is not attainable by any method, technique, art, science, discipline ...

Nor is it even central ... it's a sign, that's all, given to one for the benefit of all, in itself it means nothing. It's an assurance, that's all, it's not a goal, nor an end, nor a purpose.

Because whatever it is, it's not God.

I don't belittle it, I don't dismiss it, but it's not why I am Catholic.

This materialist age is enamoured by what they perceive as 'mystical experience' but really, that's a materialist and consumerist perspective.

Telling people that something is so sublime they will never get a sense of it, and see how many fall away in disinterest.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

I speak of nothing other than the unity of all in the Blessed Trinity, a doctrine anciently called 'theosis' or 'deification' ... when all become one, as the Trinity is One.

This is all I have discussed, yet you go on separating everything even after the encounter... it is puzzling. The void is something Buddhists and Hindu's both teach, yet they describe many practices because they are not told it is impossible - in fact they are told it is the very goal. In Christianity, you taught it is purely by grace, there is also a certain truth in this, it is as a reward for the effort but you have not done it.

How can you return from the void? The 7th plane is only accessible for humans through meditation, when meditation has ended they will return to the 6th to maintain functioning in this world - although as I say, Maitreya Ishwara claims it is not independent functioning at all, he is simply aware that God is the doer. In the void, Buddha describes a state of not non-awareness and not awareness, he simply doesn't exist in that space and nothing can be remembered of it. The 6th is the highest a human can venture and report of it...

I am not sure what you mean by the trinities oneness being greater than the metaphysical oneness... the trinity is Christianities metaphysics. As I keep saying, it hints at the 3 dimensional world, and tells you truth is a oneness. I do not identify with Christianity, so I am not left to justify how this is superior to what others achieve through practice. What you describe, the East calls a satori or kensho, it is not unique to Christians.

For me, all the baggage should be dropped now, this is where interfaith dialog should begin - it is the first point of equality, before this the devices and clingings are utterly different. In the East, the knowledge from here is unrivaled because Christians have stopped here.

 

[radarmark]

Pure smoke and mirrors and distraction. The main thing is, while the world is not nice neat, consistent and conherent, to communicate to others you must be. 'Nuff said.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt, friend, radarmark