What is the essence of all religions?

[Lunitik]

Advaita Vedanta - the non-dual end of the Vedas.

All scriptures are merely the means to recognize non-duality, not-twoism.

They are all a futile attempt to explain the ultimate experience, to detail the life of one living without duality, yet you create a duality from it.

Worship is always about the other, find out who you are.

 

[Lunitik]

Everything you have learned about Krishna, without exception, can be applicable to you if you can accept and let go of what you think you are now.

You worship Krishna, are you prepared to go even higher than him?

That too is possible, but you will think it blasphemous, it is because you do not find yourself worthy at all. You are God, and calling yourself unworthy calls him the same, stop the nonsense!

Evolution is not only physical, it is also a spiritual process, Krishna has been thousands of years ago so why can't man today exceed him? Truth will not differ, but the understanding will be simply because we have a better understanding of existence today. First you have to accept Krishna was simply a man, not born superior to you, then you see he has simply climbed to his highest peak - this is absolutely respectable, lovable.

It is disrespectful to not climb to your own peak, at least in his memory.

Not because of worship, but to respect your brother.

 

[Lunitik]

Hindu scriptures detail the incarnations of Krishna even as a fish, is it blasphemous to say the fish incarnation was not as high as the human?

Humanity is still advancing though, the same is applicable.

Each of us exist because existence wants to go a little higher through us, it wants to come to a new peak using us. Yet we are existence seeking a new peak, it is not two things, we are not a slave but the very master trying to accomplish something.

God and master both originally meant "authority" - it is why the Bible calls Caesar as God. Only this realization gives freedom, only this liberates, you are no longer a victim of something else, you are not other than God. It is only your belief you are something else, I am not speaking of belief though, I am the source, this is direct experience - even the idea of God originates through source as does the idea of who you are, it is not something absolute, and this is plain because no two people envision the same when you say it.

This brings dignity, but of course you will say it is arrogance.

 

[luecy7]

It is a function of language...

False. Your language is a function of your prior history.

To be tolerant, intolerance has to first arise...

False. People do not have to break up in order to live together.

You continue to call my words evil...

I think it is good for you to say what you think and believe. I am judging your prescriptions of how to live, think, and behave.

Do you realize that simply considering things as evil brings evil into your mind?

False. The antidote is not the virus.

You basically divide existence into good and evil, and anything that agrees with your ideas is good, and anything against your ideas is evil.

False. In my view my own actions have been good and evil. If I speak honestly of evil it is because I have either done it or suffered someone doing it.

From this you expect me to take your words about the Golden Rule seriously but you only show your own lack of maturity.

I don't think you will take the Golden Rule seriously until after you have conscientiously applied it in your life and seen the results.

... debating this simply shows you have experienced nothing of the spiritual dimensions of life...

Have you applied this to yourself and your own actions?

It causes you to say things like "God is not in the trees", you have decided foolish things because you don't understand anything about the world around you.

Good thing that I didn't say that foolish thing. Why did you say it?

This is the problem with belief, you don't actually know anything. True spirituality causes you to directly encounter these things, belief falls utterly because it is no longer necessary.

Is it good to have belief in you?

 

[Lunitik]

False. Your language is a function of your prior history.

Language is a societal function for communication.

False. People do not have to break up in order to live together.

Do you try to be as retarded as possible when you post?

I think it is good for you to say what you think and believe. I am judging your prescriptions of how to live, think, and behave.

I am not discussing any of these, this just shows how poor your comprehension skills are.

False. The antidote is not the virus.

Actually, antidotes usually contain small doses of the virus or poison.

False. In my view my own actions have been good and evil. If I speak honestly of evil it is because I have either done it or suffered someone doing it.

There is no such thing as good or evil, both are your personal perception.

I don't think you will take the Golden Rule seriously until after you have conscientiously applied it in your life and seen the results.

The Golden Rule is simply idiotic.

Have you applied this to yourself and your own actions?

Yes.

Good thing that I didn't say that foolish thing. Why did you say it?

Did you not? Or is your memory so poor you do not recall the conversation on the way to the airport?

Is it good to have belief in you?

Certainly not, you must know for yourself.

 

[Lunitik]

If you are compassionate at all, you will want everyone to be themselves with you, and thus you will be utterly yourself with them.

Instead, the Golden Rule is applied to social constructs of politeness, it wants everyone to be basically repressed and this is the whole reason society is so sick at this time. It is used in utterly the wrong way, and this is supposed to be a moralistic and ethical teaching, it has become the ultimate disgusting statement.

Why is society so against authenticity and spontaneity? We go on telling each other how to be, no one knows who they even are anymore, they become just an extension of the views others have about them and they consciously attempt to live up to their expectations.

The Golden Rule is the worst thing to become popular in history because its basic premise is beautiful, but the attention it has been given by the mediocre masses means it has become utterly twisted.

 

[Lunitik]

Of course, the Golden Rule is idiotic because it depends on a false notion, that is simply why it has become something utterly unhealthy.

For me, there is no reason to teach the ignorant through false statements, it is only necessary to remove the ignorance and all falls into place naturally. Understanding there is no separation between yourself and the other, what the Golden Rule points at becomes something utterly obvious. It is only necessary to teach at all because your minds are basically divided, but it is the notion of division which needs to be corrected.

The Golden Rule reinforces division by the back door.

It is no surprise you do not understand why intolerance has to happen before tolerance can be considered though, it is all interrelated. If you are actually open to another view, where does the tolerance come from? It is fundamentally a recognition that you differ but will be respectful about it, you are not willing to accept their perspective, you're just allowing them to be heard.

 

[seattlegal]

If you are compassionate at all, you will want everyone to be themselves with you, and thus you will be utterly yourself with them.

Instead, the Golden Rule is applied to social constructs of politeness, it wants everyone to be basically repressed and this is the whole reason society is so sick at this time. It is used in utterly the wrong way, and this is supposed to be a moralistic and ethical teaching, it has become the ultimate disgusting statement.

It's called self-control and consciousness raising. [irony]{How disgusting!}[/irony]

Why is society so against authenticity and spontaneity?

Spontaneous harmfulness would generally lead towards a degradation of society.

We go on telling each other how to be, no one knows who they even are anymore, they become just an extension of the views others have about them and they consciously attempt to live up to their expectations.

This is about taking a breath and thinking before acting in order to develop self-control over ones negative traits.

The Golden Rule is the worst thing to become popular in history because its basic premise is beautiful, but the attention it has been given by the mediocre masses means it has become utterly twisted.

Examples?

 

[luecy7]

Do you try to be as retarded as possible when you post?

Do you try to post advice that is evil?

The Golden Rule is simply idiotic.

So with you something is neither good, nor evil... it is just either idiotic or smart. I find that it is smart and good for a person and the health of those that they share life with, to be thinking and following the golden rule.

Did you not? Or is your memory so poor you do not recall the conversation on the way to the airport?

No. I said the trees are machines. So is the computer and internet that you are posting with. If memory serves me, you have claimed to be God.

Certainly not, you must know for yourself.

As I know you were evil in the past, I do not know if you will be evil in the present, nor in the future. Should I, or anyone, believe in you?

 

[radarmark]

One meets G!d, then one tries to emulate the experience. Hmmm.... since G1d is love, it would seem to me that the Golden Rule (in whatever form from Zoroastrian to Daoist) is an obvious place to start. If the experience of G!d is love (as someone said), the statement "[t]hat nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself" is a pretty good place to start for it, to me would seem that to love one must first refrain from doing harm (or not good) first.

 

[Lunitik]

It's called self-control and consciousness raising. [irony]{How disgusting!}[/irony]

The Self does not need to be controlled, repression goes against consciousness rising/expanding.

Spontaneous harmfulness would generally lead towards a degradation of society.

It is things like repression which causes people to inflict harm, and violence is never spontaneous anyway - it is always at least considered before followed through on. With spontaneity along with the compassion which comes from an undivided mind, a mind that does not cling to distinctions, there is no possibility of any harm coming.

Of course, your assumption is exactly why people are against it, we think that people are basically bad, but I tell you even murderers and the like are actually very good people that have found themselves in bad positions BECAUSE of the measures society takes against them.

This is about taking a breath and thinking before acting in order to develop self-control over ones negative traits.

Thought brings about negative traits, if you do not identify with the mind nothing negative comes up at all. The being does not find anything positive or negative, it only acts to beautify its surroundings.

Examples?

I have given many.

 

[Lunitik]

Do you try to post advice that is evil?

I post what is liberating, how you view it is on you.

So with you something is neither good, nor evil... it is just either idiotic or smart. I find that it is smart and good for a person and the health of those that they share life with, to be thinking and following the golden rule.

No, even what I say is clearly stupid to me, but this is the price to actually communicate. The Golden Rule simply creates fake people, and you are one of the most repressed people I have ever come in contact with, so you are a great example of its damages. You are not healthy at all though, how can you say the golden rule assists with health? You cannot even run with a smoker around your block...

No. I said the trees are machines. So is the computer and internet that you are posting with. If memory serves me, you have claimed to be God.

The human body is a machine, but the consciousness is not a machine and trees contain the same consciousness that we do. This is why I raised the topic in the car, I could sense their happiness as we passed, their dancing delighted me and I wanted you to at least acknowledge them.

Awareness itself is God, and it was easier to commune with those trees as we passed, or the birds and trees in your back yard than it was with you. For me, they are more in tune with God than you despite your words to the contrary.

As I know you were evil in the past, I do not know if you will be evil in the present, nor in the future. Should I, or anyone, believe in you?

I go on saying no one should believe in anything at all, when are you going to get the hang of this? Even faith is a dirty word for me, because it remains in the mind. Trust is the fragrance of love, but it has no concepts attached, it simply trusts.

You can judge my past howsoever you please. For me, I have no past or future, I reside here and now. This is the only possible time where life can exist, and my whole approach is to come in tune with life itself.

 

[Lunitik]

One meets G!d, then one tries to emulate the experience. Hmmm.... since G1d is love, it would seem to me that the Golden Rule (in whatever form from Zoroastrian to Daoist) is an obvious place to start. If the experience of G!d is love (as someone said), the statement "[t]hat nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself" is a pretty good place to start for it, to me would seem that to love one must first refrain from doing harm (or not good) first.

That emulation is the problem, you "meet God" exactly because you have let go entirely that moment and it has stopped because you have returned. Now, you want to return to that state, but you want to bring your ego into it, it has become the desire of the ego and yet it is because the ego has dropped that it happened. Can you see the foolishness? Even that it is God you met, this in fact is a notion in the mind, the happening has no words, it does not call itself God...

This is exactly what I go on saying, mind cannot be there in the search. I go on saying that mind must be killed, the little mind, the ego must certainly be killed - the private thinking you have must cease. What I call no-mind is the termination of the little mind, but of course there is the Mind, the universal consciousness which is still there.

People seem scared that if the personal mind dies, there will be no way to function in the world. It is not like this, in fact the personal mind has never been the one doing anything - it only identifies with what is happening. You cannot know anything of religiousness through the personal mind, it is because it is exactly the barrier, the nature of illusion. Even Jesus says this by instructing you to drop personal will and do the will of God, it means the same. Also, it states you must take on the mind which was also in Jesus, it is the same thing. Most important, it says you must hate your own life to be Jesus' disciple, all this is pertinent to the topic.

Instead, we go on trying to fix the personal mind, the ego, and wonder why nothing is happening. Every war that has ever been fought has happened because both sides believe they are doing the right thing, there has never been a war where one side wasn't quite sure it was worth while or righteous. The personal mind is always striving to be more, the universal mind is always everything...

If you want to live in God's presence, you must not permit the personal mind to rule you, it wants to be like the universal mind but it doesn't know how, it goes on gathering things and ideas but the universal mind is already in everything. You realize you were never something other than God once you drop the personal endeavors, this is awakening, God is Dharmakaya - your truth body.

It is just foolish to improve that which is the basis of all problems, just drop it and the problems drop with it. Instead, we go on clinging to it, we think it is us, we even protect it not realizing it is the nature of all our problems. Will you trust God - life, existence, love - to guard over your affairs and give yourself utterly as you believe yourself to be? You are only offering fallacy, but in giving up all that is false there is only truth left...

Know yourself in Dharmakaya, stop living as something separate.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Attention Ladies and gents:

“I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work . . .
I want to achieve it through not dying” ---Woody Allen



Too bad we are just the ‘every man’ character on the stage of life.

Next!

 

[Lunitik]

Attention Ladies and gents:

“I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work . . .
I want to achieve it through not dying” ---Woody Allen



Too bad we are just the ‘every man’ character on the stage of life.

Next!

What we actually are CANNOT die.

The body will fall, the current costume, but the actor just moves on to the next movie contract. Ultimately, we find we are the director himself, we do not take any more roles, we simply watch the execution of our script. This is awakening, and it is what Krishna tells Arjuna before the battle...

You are not the role, you are the one who has scripted it, but like some actors, you have become too entrenched in the role you are playing. Now you foolishly look at the script and see the character must die, believing it will be your end as well. This is the whole nature of illusion, of maya, that you think you are the lead character, that the movie is something real. Yet, even this you have not understood in the Gita.

As an actor, you can enjoy your role, there is no problem, but you must always remember the character is not you. Put on a great performance, it is fine, but always remember who you really are. Like a dream, it will persist perhaps even after waking for a short time, it is fine, just see the foolishness... you are the dreamer, you are the source of everything in your dream.

 

[seattlegal]

The Self does not need to be controlled, repression goes against consciousness rising/expanding.

Repression is not the same as self-control. Ask any two year old.

It is things like repression which causes people to inflict harm, and violence is never spontaneous anyway - it is always at least considered before followed through on.

I suppose you have to consider going into mushin when in battle, even if subconsciously.

With spontaneity along with the compassion which comes from an undivided mind, a mind that does not cling to distinctions, there is no possibility of any harm coming.

I remain skeptical. An impure mind can also be undivided.

Of course, your assumption is exactly why people are against it, we think that people are basically bad, but I tell you even murderers and the like are actually very good people that have found themselves in bad positions BECAUSE of the measures society takes against them.

"Passing the blame" game. If "society" caused them to murder, by your own words above, they must have put some thought into it beforehand.

I also remain skeptical as to your judging other people's hearts.

Thought brings about negative traits, if you do not identify with the mind nothing negative comes up at all. The being does not find anything positive or negative, it only acts to beautify its surroundings.

"To beautify" requires some sort of value judgement, no?

Would you call a diaperless baby deficating wherever "beautifying" its surroundings?

Would you call putting a diaper on a baby "repressive?"

I have given many.

Translation: "NO!" {Ask any two-year-old}

 

[Lunitik]

Repression is not the same as self-control. Ask any two year old.

The one that knows the Self does not need to control anything, but how do they differ in your mind? Self-control means essentially to stop yourself from acting on your nature, repression is the result of exactly this.

I remain skeptical. An impure mind can also be undivided.

False, the undivided mind is the pure mind, if you disagree, you simply do not comprehend what I mean by undivided. Wholeness is only understood in enlightened experiences, I think you are instead thinking of people who are obsessed with a particular goal or something similar and it is absolutely not what I mean.

"Passing the blame" game. If "society" caused them to murder, by your own words above, they must have put some thought into it beforehand.

I am not justifying putting off blame, I am assuming no one on this site is a murderer and discussing it from this perspective. It is wrong to judge a murderer without considering his circumstances, just as it is wrong to not respect life. Both sides have put thought into the circumstances, but no one grows up dreaming about killing someone.

I also remain skeptical as to your judging other people's hearts.

I do not judge, there is nothing wrong with wheresoever anyone is, but I am not interesting in discussing the topic of religion without coming to the conclusion of religion. Everything I say on this site is focused solely on the end to religion, the direct encounter of religion - of rebinding with life itself.

"To beautify" requires some sort of value judgement, no?

No, because there are no circumstances where beauty has come to its peak, and thus always there is the possibility of infusing more.

Would you call a diaperless baby deficating wherever "beautifying" its surroundings?

Why do people on this site bring such strange examples?

Would you call putting a diaper on a baby "repressive?"

No, it would be repressive if you didn't allow the child to move from the toilet all day long because you knew it would eventually relieve itself. The diaper actually enables the freedom of the child compared to alternatives.

Translation: "NO!" {Ask any two-year-old}

I have rambled in at least two posts about the examples, it is not my fault you can't be asked to read either post.

 

[seattlegal]

The one that knows the Self does not need to control anything, but how do they differ in your mind? Self-control means essentially to stop yourself from acting on your nature, repression is the result of exactly this.

A baby's nature is to deficate whenever and whenever the need arises. As the child gain self-control, it can limit defication to the proper time and place. A baby deficating just anywhere is not beautifying its environment.

False, the undivided mind is the pure mind, if you disagree, you simply do not comprehend what I mean by undivided. Wholeness is only understood in enlightened experiences, I think you are instead thinking of people who are obsessed with a particular goal or something similar and it is absolutely not what I mean.

Knowing when to grasp and when to let go and let nature take over--wei wu wei--is a sort of division and action of mind that transforms ones nature.

I am not justifying putting off blame, I am assuming no one on this site is a murderer and discussing it from this perspective. It is wrong to judge a murderer without considering his circumstances, just as it is wrong to not respect life. Both sides have put thought into the circumstances, but no one grows up dreaming about killing someone.

Then why did you blame "society" for murders when each individual case must be examined?

I do not judge,

ROFLMAO!

there is nothing wrong with wheresoever anyone is,

ok...

but I am not interesting

TRUE! {lol-just kidding}

in discussing the topic of religion without coming to the conclusion of religion. Everything I say on this site is focused solely on the end to religion, the direct encounter of religion - of rebinding with life itself.

It seems that you are pushing mindlessness rather than what you claim.

No, because there are no circumstances where beauty has come to its peak, and thus always there is the possibility of infusing more.

Not all actions lead to "beautification."

Why do people on this site bring such strange examples?

An attempt to encourage you engage brain on my part.

No, it would be repressive if you didn't allow the child to move from the toilet all day long because you knew it would eventually relieve itself. The diaper actually enables the freedom of the child compared to alternatives.

Indeed, it frees the child from the worst consequences of acting on its true nature and deficating whereever within its environment.

I have rambled in at least two posts about the examples, it is not my fault you can't be asked to read either post.

Translation: I can't be bothered with organizing my thoughts in a cohesive manner. That would require mind....

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Repression is not the same as self-control. Ask any two year old.

could you elaborate on this please ?

i struggle to see the difference.

 

[seattlegal]

Repression is not the same as self-control. Ask any two year old.

could you elaborate on this please ?

i struggle to see the difference.

Certainly. Let's go back to the basics--toilet training. Developing self-control is involved in toilet training. It involves knowing when to grasp (not deficating just anywhere) and when to release (knowing to use the toilet when deficating)--aka wei-wu-wei. Once this is mastered, deficating in the appropriate place will become effortless. As Lunitik pointed out earlier, wearing a diaper by one that is not toilet trained is not repression, but tying a child to the toilet would be repressive. Not allowing a child to deficate at all would certainly be repressive. Helping a child to develop self control in regards to this is actually freeing to the child, not repressive to the child.

I hope that helps.