The Messiah — Theosophy’s view

[Thomas]

Hi SG and EM —

You might want to check out this post Thomas made on another thread!

It did cross my mind at the time!

The objective universe is the universe of things in their thing-ness, or things as their as-is-ness. It's a finite universe, in the sense that things are ... things.

The subjective universe is the universe of meaning, of value, of potentiality, of possibility ... it's the investigation of not what a thing means, but what the being-ness of things means and, eventually, what being means.

Man is the highpoint, the apogee of creation, in that he was created for this very purpose, to scope out the infinite, to follow meaning wherever it leads.

Kant, I would say, got it wrong, falling into the classical duality of noumenon/phenomenon, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans.

Phenomena is, but the Noumena of things is our job (cf Genesis 2:15,19), it is what human nature is created for and ordered to ... we don't transcend this world by stepping out of it, we realise it, and bring it with us.
"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22).

"For us, there is only the trying.
The rest is not our business."
T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets, East Coker, V, 1,

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

Actually I don't rehearse my own spiritual formation here ... this is not the media for such discussion.

This isn't what I meant, what I mean is that you speak on others experience, you do not express your own. You still suckle on the nipple of your beliefs, I am merely trying to ween people off that and mature their spirituality.

You might want to reflect upon the same question ... how does your posting of error and prejudice help anybody?

This is what I mean, for you what I say is in error because it doesn't align to what you have read. I am absolutely against the differing belief systems because they are crippling people. I merely point this out, irrelevant of whether it happens to have worked for you, see my statement about giving the farmers credit for a poor crop.

Had you kept your posts to your own subjective experience, then I might read you with some credibility ... but as you cannot help yourself but pour scorn others, founded on nothing more than ignorance and prejudice, I'm afraid I can view you as little more than a fundamentalist of your own imagined doctrine.

There is no subjectivity in me, nor do I perceive objectively. You assume my statements are ignorant because they do not align to what you have read, but what I speak on is a direct knowing, not a memorization from a book. You say I lack credibility, but for me, it you that lacks credibility - you are as a parrot, repeating what you have heard, even if it isn't rehearsed.

There are many here who have put markers on the sand, as it were, for me to steer by. Radarmark, SeattleGal, Lunamoth, BobX (more than I dare admit!), Bananabrain ... what marks them all is they come from a background of sure knowledge, not of subjective assumptions.

You respect knowledge, I say that knowledge is nothing but a false knowing, something borrowed and collected. Knowledge doesn't deliver a direct knowing, it is merely a map for moving forward. It is very dangerous because the ego will say "I know this", but it is a delusion, you have merely memorized someone elses knowing.

What I speak of is how to know directly, for yourself. In this, there is no need for scripture, only a few devices being applied to everyday life can help. This is the path of the mystic, the deep encounter with the mysteries of life, not merely an acknowledging that there are some.

 

[Lunitik]

Kant, I would say, got it wrong, falling into the classical duality of noumenon/phenomenon, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans.

The same error is there in your own statements, except your barrier is that of subject and object, you retain a wall between the inner and outer and thus all that is experienced inwardly for you is subjective, and all that is experienced outwardly for you is objective.

Who is the one who is aware of both, though? You cling to identification with the body, but there is something unchanging which is aware of the change in your body - what is the nature of that?

 

[Lunitik]

Do you think Jesus carried around a Torah during his mission? Few of his terms are founded in Judaism, things like the Kingdom of God are utterly unfounded notions as far as the Torah is concerned. You will say it is because he is God incarnate, but in this you accept a duality, what does incarnation or reincarnation mean when there is only one Life? In a way, each of us is the incarnation of God, and yet we are all individual expressions of God at the same time - there is only one being continuously reincarnating as a new expression. We have never departed from God, and yet we perceive our experience as utterly our own, separate from all others - it is not so.

I say you can know this for yourself, that there is only a single whole, that all notions of two-ness is false, illusion. Knowing this is the definition of holiness - knowing yourself to be the whole. As it is, we split the whole into many parts - different lives sharing a single world. I speak of an absolute unity, all difference is only showing the different aspects of it. This is the true nature of individuality, that deep knowing that the whole is indivisible in truth. All duality disagrees with individuality, it only forms the false personality - the sequences of choices, picking this over that.

 

[seattlegal]

Kant, I would say, got it wrong, falling into the classical duality of noumenon/phenomenon, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans.

The same error is there in your own statements, except your barrier is that of subject and object, you retain a wall between the inner and outer and thus all that is experienced inwardly for you is subjective, and all that is experienced outwardly for you is objective.

Who is the one who is aware of both, though? You cling to identification with the body, but there is something unchanging which is aware of the change in your body - what is the nature of that?

Lunitik, did you even understand Thomas's post?
Did you miss this part?

Phenomena is, but the Noumena of things is our job (cf Genesis 2:15,19), it is what human nature is created for and ordered to ... we don't transcend this world by stepping out of it, we realise it, and bring it with us.
"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22).

"For us, there is only the trying.
The rest is not our business."
T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets, East Coker, V, 1,

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

Lunitik, did you even understand Thomas's post?
Did you miss this part?

I did not miss it, but fundamental to it is a duality, and thus its flaw.

 

[Thomas]

I speak of absolute oneness, you say your splitting into parts and insisting on differentiation is more holistic?

No, I'm saying you assume things of Christianity because you don't know what you're talking about.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

No, I'm saying you assume things of Christianity because you don't know what you're talking about.

Christianity is filled with a thousand and one stupidities. I respond directly to what you say, I am not interested in any belief system. Worse is that you have clung to anothers experience, you try to emulate Jesus' knowing. You are unique, and yet you render yourself irrelevant because of this. I speak on how to create that experience in yourself, then you can drop Jesus because you have your own knowing.

 

[seattlegal]

I did not miss it, but fundamental to it is a duality, and thus its flaw.

Really?

we don't transcend this world by stepping out of it, we realise it, and bring it with us.

Hello?

 

[seattlegal]

Christianity is filled with a thousand and one stupidities, I respond directly to what you say, I am not interested in any belief system.

You seem to feel free to make all sorts of false claims about various belief systems. I would say that does not show any degree of disinterest.

 

[Lunitik]

Really?

Who is the world, and who is us?

Us itself is plural, as is we...

 

[Lunitik]

You seem to feel free to make all sorts of false claims about various belief systems. I would say that does not show any degree of disinterest.

How do you know they are false? They disagree with your understanding of those scriptures, that is all. Note that no scripture has been written by the initial founder of that faith. I can use their quotes to point at truth, but if you cling to your false knowledge, if you cling to the words of those who have utterly missed, you will certainly miss me.

Our main issue has been related to Buddhism, but Buddha has said not to cling to him, he has said to be a light unto yourself. Yet the idiotic Buddhists have clung utterly to Siddhartha and debated what they have decided he said. All the debates show is that no one really knows what Buddha intended, yet we trust the scriptures left behind that are credited to him... this is what I am saying about knowledge. You cannot know what is true and what is false because it is not your own, you merely trust that they know what they are talking about and distrust me.

 

[Lunitik]

There is and can be only one truth, all else is a commentary on that.

Buddha's commentary differs from Jesus, yet both point at the same truth. Krishna's commentary differs from Muhammad's, yet they point at the same truth. All commentary is of a dualistic nature because you are conveying to other, as such all commentary is flawed.

Find for yourself what that truth is that they all point towards, then you can drop the finger which has pointed you there - you do not need the pointer when you can see clearly for yourself.

I am merely another finger, an interactive finger because it is a finger alive at the same time as yourself. Again, my commentary is irrelevant though, only what is being pointed to is important. If you can find it for yourself, what you say on it will differ from what I say, it is perfectly good. Each of us are a unique expression of the truth, and yet that truth is still One.

If you are still bound to another expression of it, I cannot say you are finished on the journey, you are not yet liberated. You still retain certain beliefs, certain concepts, and those are holding you to your cell.

 

[Thomas]

Christianity is filled with a thousand and one stupidities.

No, your evident ignorance of its meaning and implication means you are the source of the stupidities you see ... they're yours, no-one else's.

I respond directly to what you say, I am not interested in any belief system.

Then you are rude as well as ignorant. You're only interest here in engaging with others is to demonstrate to all how superior and very clever you are.

I speak on how to create that experience in yourself, then you can drop Jesus because you have your own knowing.

The trouble is, all the evidence points to you being as deluded as to the meaning of your experience as you are about the meaning of everything else.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

More on Logos

Λόγος is from the root λεγ, appearing in λεγω, the primitive meaning of which is to pick or gather ... before a philosophical term, it was a mathematical term for a relation or bond, and passed into philosophy as the gathering of diverse elements into a unity of sense and understanding which preserves their unity and their distinction.

This is precisely what the intellect does ... it seeks to understand.

λόγος then signifies the unity of expression of outward object (or form) and inward subject (or idea), substance and essence, instantiation and nature.

The Prologue of John uses the word in a peculiar sense. "In the beginning (en arche) was the word (logos)... "
Arche means principle, so the beginning of which John speaks is not a spatio-temporal beginning (nor, for that matter, is the beginning of Genesis 1:1), but an ontological expression.

The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity then renders the First immanent to the will and accessible to the intellect, and prevents the Deity from drifting off into some inaccessible Platonic otherworld ...

The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity renders the Second accessible to the will and immanent to the intellect ...

The First Person is God knowing, the Second Person is God self-knowing, the Third is God self-communicating.

Each is wholly and entirely in the other.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

No, your evident ignorance of its meaning and implication means you are the source of the stupidities you see ... they're yours, no-one else's.

I understand fully the implications, the stupidity is that you worship a flower instead of flowering yourself. This is the flaw of all belief systems...

Then you are rude as well as ignorant. You're only interest here in engaging with others is to demonstrate to all how superior and very clever you are.

Rudeness is your perception of my words. Your perception of my "interest" here is also a display of your error. I simply say that Jesus is not superior, that all have the same capacity as him. I try to bring the worshiper and worshiped closer together, indeed to realize that you are in truth one with the object of your worship. This is a Bible concept, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 describes exactly what I say - and yet I am the ignorant one.

The trouble is, all the evidence points to you being as deluded as to the meaning of your experience as you are about the meaning of everything else.

You say you have experienced oneness, and yet still repeatedly insist on differentiating things. Calling me deluded is simply humorous based on actual evidence.

 

[radarmark]

This is really interesting. Funny how everyone except Linitik sees some fundamental flaws in his reasoning and the subjectivity of his ideology and ego. Let us remember that he has no belief in what most of us call comptemplation or reflexion or traditions. So there is a fundamental disconnect. Much like the disconnect between the hard-core physical scientist (material monist), something I know very well (and, yes, do fall into sometimes) and the spiritualist (my favorite example is still prople of power from different Native Nations sitting around sharing different stories and views without rejection or judgement).

 

[Lunitik]

Re: More on Logos

Λόγος is from the root λεγ, appearing in λεγω, the primitive meaning of which is to pick or gather ... before a philosophical term, it was a mathematical term for a relation or bond, and passed into philosophy as the gathering of diverse elements into a unity of sense and understanding which preserves their unity and their distinction.

They are distinct expressions of the unity, and yet one in nature.

It is funny though that you insist on explaining via Greek since it is almost certain Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic. He was talking to the laypeople, and thus would have used the language of the simpletons. Greek is not that, so already we are trying to decipher a translation, and thus our statements are at best three levels removed from truth.

Do you understand, also, that you are sharing your knowledge, not something from the intellect? Do you even know the difference?

 

[Lunitik]

This is really interesting. Funny how everyone except Linitik sees some fundamental flaws in his reasoning and the subjectivity of his ideology and ego. Let us remember that he has no belief in what most of us call comptemplation or reflexion or traditions. So there is a fundamental disconnect. Much like the disconnect between the hard-core physical scientist (material monist), something I know very well (and, yes, do fall into sometimes) and the spiritualist (my favorite example is still prople of power from different Native Nations sitting around sharing different stories and views without rejection or judgement).

It is not surprising that people view my words this way, they are trying to understand with mind, and it will always fail. I describe something which is beyond mind, I speak of an apocalypse - a lifting of the veil of conceptions and views. Your mind cannot touch that, it is because mind is exactly the veil covering truth.

Ego itself is merely a conception, it is the concept of "I". It is very fragile, and so each of you will defend your ego's against my words...

 

[radarmark]

The proof!