The Messiah — Theosophy’s view

[Lunitik]

In fact this is all I said (I notice no overwhelming sense of ego). "In fact that is how I differentiate between (IMHO) acceptable and unacceptable Religions--the Religion that does not accept the religion of anyone and everyone just is too exclusive.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows"

Fine, you are entitled to believe that there is only one way and that you are the truth and the light. I just believe differently, that there are currently billions of ways and that I am not in possession of absolute truth. I just have some different experiences, opinions and beliefs than you. And I use "true" and "flse" and "know" and "believe" in the standard english usage (perhaps a little too bent to the scientific side, but I try).

Try listening to an old folk tune "Until it is time for you to go" by a Native American girl Buffy St Marie or Dylan's "My Back Pages". The joy of living is the point--being a willow that bends or younger than that--and not being a great straight oak or so much wiser.

In fact that is how I differentiate between (IMHO) acceptable and unacceptable Religions--the Religion that does not accept the religion of anyone and everyone just is too exclusive.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows

I have not said there is only one way, I have said that choosing between the different ways limits your own unique path. It leads to emulation and fanaticism more than any real spiritual growth. It becomes an avenue for hate, and then those that disagree we will lash out at.

You are perfectly correct though, life is about a conscious celebration with existence itself. All I try to point people towards is the realization that yes, the whole of existence is dancing with them the whole way too.

 

[radarmark]

Excuse me, the way English is commonly used suggests that "false" or "wrong" or "mistake" is a claim that there is a right way (one way) and a wrong way. Noir is the statement "there is only One true religion" from my posts. I would humbly suggest you re-read this thread. I never suggested one way or that my way was the right way (you will not find me using either term). However, someone signing his posts "Linitik" uses the terms "wrong" and "truth" in almost every post herein.

Nor (contrary to what you have continually posted) been "arrogant". If I came across that way to you, sorry. I am not the one who used the terms "wrong", "false", "truth", "uncompromising", "ego", "projection", "there is only One religion", "I am correcting your mistake". If I use them, they are merely a way to try to communicate how biased and bigoted these views are.

I suggest that if you wish to engage me in discussion (per post #10) use "I do not agree" or "on the contrary, I believe", which (in standard English usage) do not imply that "there is one truth, I have received it, and am the only arbiter thereof" instead of "wrong" or "false". Please do look up a few (even wiki) references on what is meant by "True", "Right", "Know", and "Believe".

The Bazooka Joe version is as follows: I believe a statement A due to a subjective decision that A expresses a truth, A is true if and only if it can be shown that it corresponds to a fact in objective reality (saying the sky is green because you mean what everyone else says is blue by green does not count), I know A if and only if I believe A, I have sufficient objective reason to believe A to be true and A is (in fact) true, A is right if and only if it corresponds to a fact in objective reality (saying A is right because I say so does not count).


Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows

 

[Lunitik]

Excuse me, the way English is commonly used suggests that "false" or "wrong" or "mistake" is a claim that there is a right way (one way) and a wrong way. Noir is the statement "there is only One true religion" from my posts.

I discuss the destination, not the many roads leading there.

*I* have said there is only One true religion, I simply say there are many avenues and teachers you can go to along the way - these are the religiouos organizations that exist in the world, those making money from an ancient awakened one instead of allowing more to surface in the world.

Until we see this widely, wars, violence and segregation will absolutely continue. We also have to get over the way we view those that have arrived and decided to speak. Most see them as a threat to their own faith system, in reality they are only here to assist you along your path should you be drawn to them - in your very hate you show you have the capacity to love them.

 

[Lunitik]

For me, it is not useful to discuss the road, it will zig-zag and meandor all over the place, there will be much to see and much to distract, there are infinite temptations along the usual roads.

The destination is within you, there is no need to even travel the road.

 

[Lunitik]

It is a rather humbling realization, you have never gotten futher or nearer from the sought - it has been there the whole time, simply waiting to be discovered, yet you have not even looked because the road was so interesting and familiar by now.

 

[radarmark]

See, we just do not agree. If you want to help someone up (a worthy goal), one helps them along their path. Not your path. If you have arrived (and from previous posts you probably fully realize I doubt that--the "I know" automatically disqualifies) you must realize that "true", "false", "good", "bad", "One true religion", "guru", "stillness", and "change" are just words. Chuangzi, Yuanwu, and Al-Ghazali (as I read them, anyway) have gone beyond this quaint notion of absolutism. We could discuss the relation of the dualism of stillness/change, light/dark, true/false and the unity of beyond. But, since as you admit you are (or at least have been) there and do not grok the subtlety of the Dao as the path, I am afraid it would be wasted.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

By which I mean "'The Perfect man has no (thought of) self; the Spirit-like man, none of merit; the Sagely-minded man, none of fame." And "You would be tying and binding yourself, you would be counting the grains of sand in the ocean, the what would there be to rely on?" And "The happiness of the drop is to die in the river.” Grok? My Friend?

 

[Lunitik]

See, we just do not agree. If you want to help someone up (a worthy goal), one helps them along their path. Not your path. If you have arrived (and from previous posts you probably fully realize I doubt that--the "I know" automatically disqualifies) you must realize that "true", "false", "good", "bad", "One true religion", "guru", "stillness", and "change" are just words. Chuangzi, Yuanwu, and Al-Ghazali (as I read them, anyway) have gone beyond this quaint notion of absolutism. We could discuss the relation of the dualism of stillness/change, light/dark, true/false and the unity of beyond. But, since as you admit you are (or at least have been) there and do not grok the subtlety of the Dao as the path, I am afraid it would be wasted.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

By which I mean "'The Perfect man has no (thought of) self; the Spirit-like man, none of merit; the Sagely-minded man, none of fame." And "You would be tying and binding yourself, you would be counting the grains of sand in the ocean, the what would there be to rely on?" And "The happiness of the drop is to die in the river.” Grok? My Friend?

You are perfectly right, they are just words... words that convey something... even the Bible states what I say though, even the Bible states God is within and without - I add that mind is the barrier creating this duality, just as it creates all dualities. It says God is closer than your life vein, and last I checked you uphold Christianity above all else, despite your general "openness". Why journey this world when you can find it wherever you are?

I assure you, however, I certainly understand the subtly of the Dao. How can it be otherwise? Lao Tzu is talking about the same as what I talk about, so it is a very strange statement. Do you realize what I say is the same as what you quote? Especially the happiness of the drop being to die in the river, this is all I go on saying...

 

[radarmark]

Ah, Lunitik, it is useless. Just let it be, we agree on so much, it is only your grasping and groping for rightness that separates us. By the way it is Laozi, not Lao Tzu. Obviously you did not have a Chinese teacher.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows

 

[Lunitik]

Ah, Lunitik, it is useless. Just let it be, we agree on so much, it is only your grasping and groping for rightness that separates us. By the way it is Laozi, not Lao Tzu. Obviously you did not have a Chinese teacher.

It is my insistence that agreement is not meaningful, it is of mind and thus irrelevant. This is what you perceive as my need to be right, it is not about right or wrong though because this is merely another duality. What I speak of is the very experience of Laozi, he has written the Tao Te Ching in 3 days at knife tip, it is not his experience.

This is the problem with many religious people though, they go on learning and emulating, they do not realize this merely creates a training, a programming. It is not a reality for them as it was for Laozi, they are taking it as a philosophy or system of morality whereas it is something far deeper.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"Obviously you did not have a Chinese teacher."

--> That is an insult to every user of Wade-Giles.

 

[radarmark]

Yes, but then those who have read from the Western Tradition usually do not claim a guru or buddahood.

Get it, Nick?

 

[Lunitik]

Yes, but then those who have read from the Western Tradition usually do not claim a guru or buddahood.

In the West, mystics are forced to be very private in their practices, it is because of the persecution based on how prophets are viewed - automatically you must be trying to say you are sent by God. In Sufism, though, Prophet is merely the same as Buddha, the highest attainment in their tradition. Down the ages, Sufi's have been slaughted en masse, yet you wonder why you have not heard of their schools...

They pick you, you cannot find them if it is a true school.

 

[seattlegal]

You are perfectly right, they are just words... words that convey something... even the Bible states what I say though, even the Bible states God is within and without - I add that mind is the barrier creating this duality, just as it creates all dualities. It says God is closer than your life vein, and last I checked you uphold Christianity above all else, despite your general "openness". Why journey this world when you can find it wherever you are?

I assure you, however, I certainly understand the subtly of the Dao. How can it be otherwise?

Compare your technique with the Tao Te Ching:

Chapter 36

If one wishes to shrink it
One must first expand it
If one wishes to weaken it
One must first strengthen it
If one wishes to discard it
One must first promote it
If one wishes to seize it
One must first give it
This is called subtle clarity
The soft and weak overcomes the tough and strong
Fish cannot leave the depths
The sharp instruments of the state
Cannot be shown to the people​

​

Lao Tzu is talking about the same as what I talk about, so it is a very strange statement. Do you realize what I say is the same as what you quote? Especially the happiness of the drop being to die in the river, this is all I go on saying...

Your technique is anything but subtle and graceful, and your words do not follow Lao Tzu's words. (But then, it can be difficult to make the not-so-subtle discernment if you are stuck in the destruction of so-called {clue there} opposites.)

 

[radarmark]

Ooo, ooo, ooo! Let me guess--opposites "Now I do not know if I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming I was a man".

Laozi was concerned (or wrote to) societal man about the dao. Chuangzi was concerned with (or wrote to) the dao within each of us about personhood.

Panta Rhei!
Everything Flows!

 

[Lunitik]

Compare your technique with the Tao Te Ching:

Chapter 36

If one wishes to shrink it
One must first expand it
If one wishes to weaken it
One must first strengthen it
If one wishes to discard it
One must first promote it
If one wishes to seize it
One must first give it
This is called subtle clarity
The soft and weak overcomes the tough and strong
Fish cannot leave the depths
The sharp instruments of the state
Cannot be shown to the people​

​

Your technique is anything but subtle and graceful, and your words do not follow Lao Tzu's words. (But then, it can be difficult to make the not-so-subtle discernment if you are stuck in the destruction of so-called {clue there} opposites.)

This is why I talk about let-go and causing mind to die...

When you let go of everything you think you are, you gain what you really are.
When you cause the mind where thoughts arise to die, you gain the mind where reality itself arises.

I go on telling you that what I say is a device, and you go on using logic to resist the device... please simply ignore my posts, you will never attain in this way so you are just wasting my time and ruining my devices. Buddha kills mind slowly so you can trust it more, but it can happen this very second that you overcome your delusions and see the real.

You have to be willing to drop all that you are though, everything you hold near and dear must be put aside, everything you have decided is fact, all you believe about the world right now. All this crap that is confining your true nature into this prison cell of belief has to go. Then you are divine, you are the whole experiencing itself, no more a puny human utterly effected by the game. If you say this directly though, it happens that only desire is their motivation - they want this, but it cannot happen like that.

You must be utterly ready to die, then you can start to really live - life as truth, right now, you are still too much guarded, allowing mind to conjure ways to protect its current form.

 

[Lunitik]

Liberation is from mind, all suffering arises in mind... overcome.

Melt into this exact second, can you do it? Can you find this very moment through the perception of motion which mind insists is occurring? Mind will feel it is suffocating, but you are not mind, keep going. Why will you save what is not real in the first place? Ignore its attempts to latch on and jump, you are the ocean, why remain a drop on the leaf?

Where is the rain drop now?

 

[Thomas]

... who will be our next Buddha thousands of years in the future.

Traditions such as the Abrahamic and the Platonic, who assert that God is Absolute, and who comprehend the meaning of 'absolute' metaphysically, would of course reject such notions as naive, as the Absolute is not bound by spatio-temporal conditioning.

God is immanently present right here, right now. 'Grace perfects nature' as we say, so time/evolution is no part of the equation. There is nothing the man of tomorrow can attain that it not attainable right now. That message is implicit in the Christian texts.

According to the theory...

As you say, one theory among many... if wish I had a penny for every one of 'em!

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

Traditions such as the Abrahamic and the Platonic, who assert that God is Absolute, and who comprehend the meaning of 'absolute' metaphysically, would of course reject such notions as naive, as the Absolute is not bound by spatio-temporal conditioning.

If this is the only criteria, then I am the Absolute. Space-time is a perception of mind, going beyond mind you are freed from this conditioning. Of course, 1 Timothy 6:16 says what I experienced is not possible - either that or I am not human, which backs up your inferred statement that I am the Absolute. Either way, I choose not allow ego to assert, and thus state your understanding as erroneous.

God is immanently present right here, right now. 'Grace perfects nature' as we say, so time/evolution is no part of the equation. There is nothing the man of tomorrow can attain that it not attainable right now. That message is implicit in the Christian texts.

Again, this is exactly a meditation technique, dropping past and future and finding the present moment. Past and future are a duality, herenow is a transcendence of this duality but mind can never permit you to see it. Always, mind is meandering off to the next task, or considering this weekend, or remembering last year or whatever... it is never herenow.

God resides in each man, this is the part in him which is unchanging, which is utterly permanent - it is exactly this which meditation focuses on, this is the sought when meditation is the method for seeking. The body must evolve, it must adapt to changing scenarios here in this place, but our essence is always constant. You can feel the base of your spine and know where once our ancestors had tails, yet you deny physical evolution? You can have a brain scan and a doctor can show exactly where the original primal brain is located, where our evolved brain functions are, yet evolution is invalid? This is simply stupid, you cannot dispute fact simply because your belief structure does not permit it.

 

[Thomas]

If this is the only criteria, then I am the Absolute.

But this is not the only criteria, by a long stretch.

Here's a test:
If you should cease to exist as Lunitik in the next instant ... would the cosmos cease to exist also?

If yes, then indeed you are the Absolute ... if not, which is what I suspect to be the case, then you are not.

Space-time is a perception of mind...

It is, nevertheless, a perception of what is, 'perception of mind' does not mean that what the mind perceives does not exist.

Of course, 1 Timothy 6:16 says what I experienced is not possible ...

Actually it doesn't. You should check out the meaning of theosis — it's about participation.

Either way, I choose not allow ego to assert, and thus state your understanding as erroneous.[/quote
Either way, your assertion that you are Absolute shows just how egoically-founded you are.

God bless,

Thomas



Again, this is exactly a meditation technique, dropping past and future and finding the present moment. Past and future are a duality, herenow is a transcendence of this duality but mind can never permit you to see it. Always, mind is meandering off to the next task, or considering this weekend, or remembering last year or whatever... it is never herenow.

God resides in each man, this is the part in him which is unchanging, which is utterly permanent - it is exactly this which meditation focuses on, this is the sought when meditation is the method for seeking. The body must evolve, it must adapt to changing scenarios here in this place, but our essence is always constant. You can feel the base of your spine and know where once our ancestors had tails, yet you deny physical evolution? You can have a brain scan and a doctor can show exactly where the original primal brain is located, where our evolved brain functions are, yet evolution is invalid? This is simply stupid, you cannot dispute fact simply because your belief structure does not permit it.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry ... edit failure at the end of the above post.

Either way, I choose not allow ego to assert, and thus state your understanding as erroneous.

Your very mode of argument shows just how egoically-founded you are.

Again, this is exactly a meditation technique, dropping past and future and finding the present moment.

I am not talking 'technique' here, which is in itself a mental exercise.

Past and future are a duality...

Yes ... and no ... they are also a contimuum.

herenow is a transcendence of this duality but mind can never permit you to see it.

I question that. Your 'herenow' is conditioned and conditional, so not necessarily transcendent.

Always, mind is meandering off to the next task, or considering this weekend, or remembering last year or whatever... it is never herenow.

Your mind ...

God resides in each man...

Pastorally and volitionally correct, but this is a sentimental statement rather than a philosophical or metaphysical one, which is what we should be discussing here.

The more precise metaphysical understanding is that God is immanently present in and to creation as the source, the foundation or, if you like, the ground of being ... but as God is not a being as other beings are, God is beyond-being, as the traditions declare, then God is beyond the being-ness of things.

God is not a part of being, but rather beings arise through the creative act of God, who is source and end. It is a common error today to confuse artist and artefact, creator and creation.

this is the part in him which is unchanging, which is utterly permanent - it is exactly this which meditation focuses on, this is the sought when meditation is the method for seeking.

Then it will never be found, for all nature and all natures are created, and thus subject to change — God is not in 'parts' nor present to 'parts', as God is Absolute, and Infinite, and other-than anything else.

You look for the part of you that is unchanging, never seeing that 'you' arise from something else, and that 'you' will always be relative and contingent. Only by incorporation and participation can a created nature experience the Uncreate ... and it cannot be attained or achieved by 'technique' but only by invitation (the lower cannot assume the higher) ... that's why we say 'grace perfects nature'.

... yet you deny physical evolution?

No ... where did you get that from?

... yet evolution is invalid?

You're probably assuming that all Christians believe as creationists believe — please take my word for it that Catholics, and Christians in general, in Europe at least, are bemused by the more vociferous of the Christian evangelicals/fundamentalists in the US.

... This is simply stupid, you cannot dispute fact simply because your belief structure does not permit it.

Actually it's not my 'stupidity' but yours ... you obviously have a tenuous grip on Christian Doctrine according to ancient Tradition, although I readily accept that your errors are due to the errors of your teacher(s).

God bless,

Thomas