The man or the vision?

[_Z_]

The man or the vision?



I think Jesus, Mohamed the Buddha Confucius and such people, all had a vision or were ‘carriers of a vision’ as I would put it. I don’t think there is anything that causes the vision - like e.g. a god, but that their minds environment and placement in the world all collided in a manner that ‘evoked’ the vision of the age within them. It is as if ‘carried on a wind’ relative to time and coincidence - part of the great machine of the omniverse [all worlds eternity {if there is} and infinity], history has its path, not set in stone yet certain events must occur and someone or something has to be the mechanism by which it all happens.



Well this is my idea of it, would you agree or disagree that it is the vision or message, rather than the individuals who pass them on, indeed we are merely ‘vehicles for the vision’?



Contrarily are these individuals the key factor of the vision. I see many potential stars that sound like others when singing, could it be that any one that has given qualities or ‘the necessary quicksilver’ may become the singer or the messenger, or are they vague shadows of the one?



Is there a greater ‘vision of visions’ do you think? please don’t answer saying such and such has this greater vision, the notion is all-inclusive!

Z

 

[Popeyesays]

The man or the vision?



I think Jesus, Mohamed the Buddha Confucius and such people, all had a vision or were ‘carriers of a vision’ as I would put it. I don’t think there is anything that causes the vision - like e.g. a god, but that their minds environment and placement in the world all collided in a manner that ‘evoked’ the vision of the age within them. It is as if ‘carried on a wind’ relative to time and coincidence - part of the great machine of the omniverse [all worlds eternity {if there is} and infinity], history has its path, not set in stone yet certain events must occur and someone or something has to be the mechanism by which it all happens.



Well this is my idea of it, would you agree or disagree that it is the vision or message, rather than the individuals who pass them on, indeed we are merely ‘vehicles for the vision’?



Contrarily are these individuals the key factor of the vision. I see many potential stars that sound like others when singing, could it be that any one that has given qualities or ‘the necessary quicksilver’ may become the singer or the messenger, or are they vague shadows of the one?



Is there a greater ‘vision of visions’ do you think? please don’t answer saying such and such has this greater vision, the notion is all-inclusive!

Z

Well, I think Confutze was a philosopher, not a "Prophet".

Other than that, I think that those who arise with the "vision" of which you speak are specially sanctified by God for the purpose of Revelation. They are human in one sense, and 'other' in a different sense. In my scriptures this is one of many references to these Sanctified Souls:

"If thou be of the inmates of this city within the ocean of divine unity, thou wilt view all the Prophets and Messengers of God as one soul and one body, as one light and one spirit, in such wise that the first among them would be last and the last would be first. For they have all arisen to proclaim His Cause and have established the laws of divine wisdom. They are, one and all, the Manifestations of His Self, the Repositories of His might, the Treasuries of His Revelation, the Dawning-Places of His splendour and the Daysprings of His light. Through them are manifested the signs of sanctity in the realities of all things and the tokens of oneness in the essences of all beings. Through them are revealed the elements of glorification in the heavenly realities and the exponents of praise in the eternal essences. From them hath all creation proceeded and unto them shall return all that hath been mentioned. And since in their inmost Beings they are the same Luminaries and the self-same Mysteries, thou shouldst view their outward conditions in the same light, that thou mayest recognize them all as one Being, nay, find them united in their words, speech, and utterance."
(Baha'u'llah, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 33)

Regards,
Scott

 

[_Z_]

Popeysays, hi.

What about the religions previous to monotheistic ones – who was guiding then?

Perhaps Baha’I, is the vision of visions, I have wondered this since entering this forum – yet I wonder if monotheism is as advanced as ‘universal approach’ philosophy, as one may have a no god/gods approach or a one or multiple approach, then we would say one should have all approaches within the greater vision. Is it not so that a vision of visions would be universal? So who yet has produced a universal vision?



From what I know of Baha’I, it appears the most universal religion to date, yet can one expand the philosophical trend to its ends? Or is this within the Baha’I faith anyway?

Prophets and Messengers of God as one soul and one body

All prophets? Mirlin or similar druid types, ancient Egyptian, hindu, Assyrian prophets etc.

how about all gods? is it not so that all gods and deities have their place in the great scheme of things.

in such wise that the first among them would be last and the last would be first

hmm… so osiris [e.g.] would swap places with the Baha'u'llah and vice versa?



I can see the one [oneness within the universal] of the Baha’I vision, but not the zero or the white light and yet not the transparency or the colour. Perhaps I will learn of these things as I go eh! Were are here to question, so please don’t think of my rants as attacks, I just like to squeeze the juice out of philosophies I find interesting!

respect

Z

 

[Popeyesays]

Popeysays, hi.

What about the religions previous to monotheistic ones – who was guiding then?

Perhaps Baha’I, is the vision of visions, I have wondered this since entering this forum – yet I wonder if monotheism is as advanced as ‘universal approach’ philosophy, as one may have a no god/gods approach or a one or multiple approach, then we would say one should have all approaches within the greater vision. Is it not so that a vision of visions would be universal? So who yet has produced a universal vision?



From what I know of Baha’I, it appears the most universal religion to date, yet can one expand the philosophical trend to its ends? Or is this within the Baha’I faith anyway?







All prophets? Mirlin or similar druid types, ancient Egyptian, hindu, Assyrian prophets etc.

how about all gods? is it not so that all gods and deities have their place in the great scheme of things.






hmm… so osiris [e.g.] would swap places with the Baha'u'llah and vice versa?



I can see the one [oneness within the universal] of the Baha’I vision, but not the zero or the white light and yet not the transparency or the colour. Perhaps I will learn of these things as I go eh! Were are here to question, so please don’t think of my rants as attacks, I just like to squeeze the juice out of philosophies I find interesting!

respect

Z

Well, part of our tradition is the idea that ideas raise sparks when they cone in contact with one another and this is the light that leads to truth. In other words, I take no real offense at any question.

We know the names of many of the Manifestations of God, of some fewer we have a record of their words of guidance, in some we have only the names and a tradition of what they might have said. Of some we do not even know their names. God does not leave us by ourselves and no people has ever been left without guidance.

Somewhere in the dim past is the first to recognize the Unity of God and express it - sometimes we call Him Adam, or Osiris, or Gilgamesh, or Akhnaten. The fact is we do not know His name. It is unimportant.

I think that somewhere in some place in any society the idea that God is One and His Message is the same comes to light. That society may embrace the concept or not. In fact the Qur'an records the Prophets Salih and Hud and speaks of the fact that the peoples to whom They came were heedless of the message.

I think monotheism is a natural outcome of man's ability to reason and bring order to his society. Sometimes religions that most think are polytheistic truly are not when examined closely - most Hindus when asked the question: "How many Gods are there?" will answer "ONE". Perhaps all of the pantheons of man's history are attempts to compartmentalize the Godhead like Hinduism does and provide avatars for reflection, contemplation, and focus.

As to those who say there is no God, every human being is born with the right to choose his answer to that question. I think that is the essence of human rights and "free will". No other man has a right to usurp that or accept the responsibility of another for that. I think Buddhism accepts the concept of the Unborn and Uncreated so easily that it is a non-issue to Buddha, and an assumed denial of God has become a veil of misunderstanding since the days of the Buddha. Those are my personal feelings anyway.

Ask anything you like, I will try to answer as honestly as you ask; but by all means do not accept my answers because I offer them, read for yourself, study for yourself, choose for yourself.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I think Jesus, Mohamed the Buddha Confucius and such people, all had a vision or were ‘carriers of a vision’ as I would put it.

I feel compelled to disagree with regards to the Buddha.

The Buddha refers to himself as the "Tathagata" meaning "The Thus Gone One". He does not have a vision of the way, he has first hand experience of the way because he has travelled it and he is now perfectly enlightened.

Jesus and Mohammed are singled out as prophets (or Jesus as a deity) and no ordinary man can hope to be like them. Buddha is not specially singled out, others have achieved Buddhahood and I hope to myself one day. (probably a billion lifetimes down the line).

So basically, I would say you may be right about the others (though many will disagree with me) but not about Buddha.

I think Buddhism accepts the concept of the Unborn and Uncreated so easily that it is a non-issue to Buddha, and an assumed denial of God has become a veil of misunderstanding since the days of the Buddha.

Oh dear.

Buddhism accepts the uncreated in that everything is uncreated, the universe itself was never created. As for the unborn, the only ones who are unborn are those who are currently in between lives, there is no beginning in Buddhism, just a constant, painfull cycle.

Denial of God is not a misunderstanding, it is a cornerstone of Buddhist belief without which Buddhism does not make sense.

But we have a whole thread for this discussion where Buddhists and Baha'is have now spent about 2 years trying desperately to skewer each other with scriptures and roast each other over the fires of logic.

(Im feeling quite prosaic this morning)

Peace
AT5

 

[Popeyesays]

I feel compelled to disagree with regards to the Buddha.

The Buddha refers to himself as the "Tathagata" meaning "The Thus Gone One". He does not have a vision of the way, he has first hand experience of the way because he has travelled it and he is now perfectly enlightened.

Jesus and Mohammed are singled out as prophets (or Jesus as a deity) and no ordinary man can hope to be like them. Buddha is not specially singled out, others have achieved Buddhahood and I hope to myself one day. (probably a billion lifetimes down the line).

So basically, I would say you may be right about the others (though many will disagree with me) but not about Buddha.



Regards,
Scott



Oh dear.

Buddhism accepts the uncreated in that everything is uncreated, the universe itself was never created. As for the unborn, the only ones who are unborn are those who are currently in between lives, there is no beginning in Buddhism, just a constant, painfull cycle.

Denial of God is not a misunderstanding, it is a cornerstone of Buddhist belief without which Buddhism does not make sense.

But we have a whole thread for this discussion where Buddhists and Baha'is have now spent about 2 years trying desperately to skewer each other with scriptures and roast each other over the fires of logic.

(Im feeling quite prosaic this morning)

Peace
AT5

---------------------------

It is certainly been open to discussion. Here I will refer to the Pali texts and show how I see it. No one is required to see it as I see it.

"




In a famous Pali text attributed to Sariputra, the great disciple of Buddha, and accepted by all Pali orthodoxy He says:

'Oh disciples, there is a non-born, a non-produced, [a] non-created, a non-formed, if there were not, oh disciples, a non-born, a non-produced, a non-created and a non-formed, there would be no issue for the born, the produced, the created, the formed.'​

Since Buddha maintained that everything in the world has come into existence due to the law of Karma, law of action and reaction, there can be no action without the doer and willer of action. There must have been the first action and the fixing of the law of Karma. Whoever fixed that law and had the power to carry it out must have been confident of its result. No law can come into existence by itself without an intelligent Entity. The Master Mind behind all creation, therefore, is the First Cause. People call Him God. Buddha called Him the First Cause. "

Creation may be the made, but God is not part of Creation. He is the Creator. The Created may be part of God or may be separate. God is the "Unmade" because before Creation was God. Before anything was "born" was God.

I would opine that Jesus and Moses, Muhammed, Baha`u'llah, Krshna, Zoroaster, Buddha and the others unnamed or unknown all "walked the path" as God willed it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[bob x]

"Buddha called Him the First Cause"
Buddha neither used the phrase "First Cause", nor would have used the pronoun "Him" for what is not a person.

 

[Popeyesays]

To quote fully:
THE IMMUTABLE
There is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun, nor moon. This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering.
There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated, this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.
But since there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is escape possible from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed.
((The Eightfold Path), Buddha, the Word (The Eightfold Path))
-------------------------

To me this is a reference to the Creator and what was before Creation, and a description of a return to that state. What it is to you, is up to you.

Regards,
Scott

 

[_Z_]

Well answered! Popeyesays.



Yes I would agree that polytheists believed their gods to be of one god or at least a universal spirit of some kind. In the Egyptian book of the dead, the term god is used many hundreds of times, yet they did not have the monotheistic notion, yet obviously something that the interpreter thought of as like god.



The problem I have with monotheism, is that there are universal philosophical notions like ‘there are no beginnings or endings’ stemming from the root philosophy ‘there are no absolute divisions between things’ thus the creator aspect is called into question [see beyond infinity thread, it is quite vast I am afraid]. Then we may ask; where does one draw the lines that define the one from the many? If we draw any then this causes a dualistic paradox. Thus we are looking at god being a universal deity! Everything is then god/universal spirit in different forms even physical reality is like the outer skin of the its body so to say. You see imho as soon as we say god is one, then we are declaring division in its opposition to the multiplicity, thus I would say god is universal and all things are god [in his forms].



This however still leaves us using the term ‘god’, this term implies and is usually thought of as in the singular, the one, the perfect and whole, and is thought of as one being! Perhaps god then is one and multiple at once thus paganism and monotheism are perspectives of the same thing. If we add the visions together then we have the whole picture, thus yes monotheistic religion had to happen along humanities philosophical progression, as did polytheism, and we end up with a universal understanding – but do we keep god and the prophets [as leaders] or does a vision of visions disclude them as individually correct and the one – the messiah etc. I would say the big picture necessarily disallows any leader of whatever nature.



I am wondering how Buddhism fits into all this? It seams somewhat evasive due to its nature.



Thank you for your answers and open mind!



Awaiting the fifth, hi.

‘The thus gone one’

Fascinating! Firstly we would have to presume that there is a ‘way’? I would say all there is, is ‘anyway’ as the universal has no direction due to its impermanence and general non-conformation to anything in absolutes [to follow one law or way etc]. The universal must take all actions possible, in this it is ungoverned. Thus I would say that the Buddha, found ‘a’ way, as opposed to the way! Would the Buddha presume all others to be incorrect in their visions? And is the Buddhist path a universal one! Where would one draw the line between nirvana and other aspects of reality?

probably a billion lifetimes down the line

Why do Buddhists always say things like this? Nirvana is surely the most natural state of mind, as a believer in ‘natural philosophy’ [a druidic magical understanding of the natural ways or trends in all things], one enters the void/beyond infinity, and things naturally enter the mind, yet we may simply allow the arisings in our minds to cease, then allow nirvana to naturally flow [or not flow as the case may be], when in the void this is not so difficult! I hope that opposite will allow us both to fall in the middle – thence it will only take us half a billion years eh!



BTW. Does ‘eternally uncreated’ also mean not manifest? Or does this apply to the idea of a non-dualistic perception where there are no lines drawn [see above post [and the beyond infinity thread]. We can have a continuum, without having beginnings, as to do the opposite would place the pre-existence into an ‘outside position’ and hence belongs to a dualistic worldview!



Respect



Z

 

[Popeyesays]

Well answered! Popeyesays.
The problem I have with monotheism, is that there are universal philosophical notions like ‘there are no beginnings or endings’ stemming from the root philosophy ‘there are no absolute divisions between things’ thus the creator aspect is called into question [see beyond infinity thread, it is quite vast I am afraid]. Then we may ask; where does one draw the lines that define the one from the many? If we draw any then this causes a dualistic paradox. Thus we are looking at god being a universal deity! Everything is then god/universal spirit in different forms even physical reality is like the outer skin of the its body so to say. You see imho as soon as we say god is one, then we are declaring division in its opposition to the multiplicity, thus I would say god is universal and all things are god [in his forms].

Z

I would view this a little differently. I don't think that all things "are God". I think all things are "of God."

God and Creation are separate. Before Creation God WAS. God is the Primal Cause of Creation, but Creation is not "God". I beloieve that God not only created the universe (multiverse, dimensional universes, metaverse, omniverse, what have you), but maintains it from moment to moment out of His own will.

We are creatures of Creation, we are part of the "effect" not the "cause".

Regards,
Scott

 

[_Z_]

popeyesays.
A dualistic perspective and worldview then!? I think we at opposites here, ill have to think on a way to unite these worlds if there is one – or is it irresolvable?

Z

 

[Popeyesays]

popeyesays.
A dualistic perspective and worldview then!? I think we at opposites here, ill have to think on a way to unite these worlds if there is one – or is it irresolvable?

Z

Parallax decrees that reality is never quite what one views it to be. Is dichotomy bad? No. I am not a Marxist, but I believe that life is, after all a dialectic journey you have to move from synthesis to synthesis and that is a matter of "resolution". Resolution does not necessarily mean one view is right; it may be that the amalgamation of both views reveals truth, but truth is an elusive thing, the surer you are that you possess it, the more likely you are going to find it has modified itself from one viewing to the next.

Regards,
Scott

 

[_Z_]

popeyesays
Yes there is nothing wrong in what you say, it is good to always remain open! Anyhow duality is a tricky thing, as one has to have separateness, on some level, that there is distinction. It is then a paradox that in order to arrive at universality, there must be both the one and the multiple, the divided and the undivided, thus the schism of the root to all duality.


Interesting! - so we are all both right and wrong eh!

 

[kabir]

My take is that Jesus, Mohamed, the Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Rama, & Meher Baba were the Avatar of their respective ages, so while their messages are important, the spiritual push for mankind comes from the Divine One consciously taking human form... In the case of Confucius (while I don't know his spiritual status), I think it's more his message... just my view...

jack

 

[_Z_]

Kabir hello!



Such people are the vehicles of the vision of their ages imho. the ‘divine one’ as you call it, does take form; as us and everything else. It does not make sense that he can take form as individuals like Jesus – Jesus was just a man as you or I who are already god in the form of humans! Perhaps we could say that such people are chosen to be the vehicles of the visions! Or that they are of the relevant nature to receive. In short they are all as like Confucius, we just add the vision to the man thence seeing him as more.


glad to meet

respect

Z

 

[kabir]

Kabir hello!



Such people are the vehicles of the vision of their ages imho. the ‘divine one’ as you call it, does take form; as us and everything else. It does not make sense that he can take form as individuals like Jesus – Jesus was just a man as you or I who are already god in the form of humans!

Hi, Z! Well, in my view, man and everything else is already God, but unconscious of their divinity. The Avatar, on the other hand is the original limited soul (Adam) to traverse the path through evolution and involution from unconscious divinity to God Consciousness and comes back every now and again to give the rest of us the spiritual push we need.

Perhaps we could say that such people are chosen to be the vehicles of the visions! Or that they are of the relevant nature to receive. In short they are all as like Confucius, we just add the vision to the man thence seeing him as more.

glad to meet

respect

Z

Perhaps Confucius did experience his oneness with God consciously, I don't know... but yes, it's great to see you again my old friend...

love,
jack

 

[_Z_]

Man and everything else is already God

Exactly! Yet then you say one man is more god than another? Perhaps we are all treading the path of god being manifest in his natures, but this would deny us our individuality, and leaves us with a schism of there being only one being with multiple facets, yet for ‘it’ [god or whatever] to be universal it must have all natures such as separateness in paradox to oneness. I suppose Adam could be seen as the original self and god as that same being but complete, but I would still believe we are all equally ‘Adam’ too! [God in his forms]. Though 0f course we are giving form to something less tangible our words may describe.

Perhaps Confucius did experience his oneness with God consciously, I don't know... but yes, it's great to see you again my old friend...

What quirky humour is in this?

 

[Bandit]

Exactly! Yet then you say one man is more god than another? Perhaps we are all treading the path of god being manifest in his natures, but this would deny us our individuality, and leaves us with a schism of there being only one being with multiple facets, yet for ‘it’ [god or whatever] to be universal it must have all natures such as separateness in paradox to oneness. I suppose Adam could be seen as the original self and god as that same being but complete, but I would still believe we are all equally ‘Adam’ too! [God in his forms]. Though 0f course we are giving form to something less tangible our words may describe.

maybe adam broke off in many pieces through his flesh (seed) & we gather ourselves back to God as offspring through Jesus, over time all the pieces become one body in spirit.
maybe that was in Gods vision of man?

 

[_Z_]

Yes possibly bandit, and surely god became the actuality of the vision as well as the vision itself! As like the universe is the body of god. What then if we take god out of the equation? Then we are simply what we are, beings who traverse worlds! These worlds are forever changing and there was no beginning or a creator, thence the visions are our visions of which we are the actuality/reality. Then there is no bond to tie all the visions together as one, thus the vision of visions is that there is no overall plan or vision of visions! – Life is not a question.



Just thought I would share the godless view in my duel perspective worldview. One day I will find a way to reconcile the differences, it seams an uphill task at the moment!

 

[Bandit]

Yes possibly bandit, and surely god became the actuality of the vision as well as the vision itself! As like the universe is the body of god. What then if we take god out of the equation? Then we are simply what we are, beings who traverse worlds! These worlds are forever changing and there was no beginning or a creator, thence the visions are our visions of which we are the actuality/reality. Then there is no bond to tie all the visions together as one, thus the vision of visions is that there is no overall plan or vision of visions! – Life is not a question.



Just thought I would share the godless view in my duel perspective worldview. One day I will find a way to reconcile the differences, it seams an uphill task at the moment!

Oh.
ok. but if i take God out of the equation, then i just have my own tiny little visions, like my vacation next year & where my burial plot will be.

i see what you are trying to do now, but i cant think that way. I have tried many times & have not succeeded. uphill for sure.
i suppose we will all find out soon enough about the actuality/reality vision.