Origins of Jesus Christ

On one hand, life is astonishingly simple once you strip it down to the essentials. But people insist that there be an inherent benevolence to nature and everything. If you don't need that, and you don't need life to read like a myth- with a hero, villain, and moral, then you don't need koans. On the other hand, life is astonishingly complex and paradoxical. But again, if you don't need the Disney narrative the uncertainty is manageable. And, in fact, a large proportion of the spiritual-ish aphorisms that everyone digs so much are making that exact point. Everyone is masturbating to the idea of this essential uncertainty, but they won't actually let go. Everything is set up to discourage you from actually letting go.

Chris

(edited a dozen times to compensate for beer.)
 
I kinda hate to use the term "cognitive dissonance" because it tends to get used for a lot of different things, but the reality is that no two people are going to fully agree on the meanings attached to words. By the time a person gets done with jargon and slang and metaphor / allusion and poetic license and whatever other lingusitic complications, words take on a different life for each person.

OK, let's use your word "rain." What that word means to you may or may not coincide with what it means to me. OK, we both have a dictionary we can refer to, to see if we are in the same ballpark. But what from there? If all I have to go by is the word "rain," am I to presume a light drizzle, a freezing rain, a violent thunderstorm, the depths of a hurricane, the fury of a tornado, a monsoon, wind-driven bone-soaking madness...or a gentle little rainbow maker in the distance? Every one of these is rain, all are correct answers with the limited info we have.

That is the kind of trouble I see when one broaches such esoteric subjects as "G-d." We all have the dictionary. From there we all extrapolate, putting our versions of spin on the matter. Some anthropomorphize "Him," some deny the form while retaining the function, some make an attempt to logically disengage but can't without referencing Him, some are absolutely certain they know what He looks like even though they have never seen His face. Such is the nature of the problem we are up against when communicating abstract ideas and concepts. And the trouble is, none of us is correct, and yet we are all correct. There is no *one* way of definitively making a solid and irrefutable case for what exactly G-d is...because we simply and truthfully just don't know.

We all want to believe. We hedge our bets and hope for the best when the dust settles, and proceed with the caution instilled by our parents and our culture.

Well, there can't be an ultimate base or ceiling line to semantics. Do I want to define what a "drop" of rain is, or exactly what "fall" means? I could, but the point isn't to construct a semantical pissing contest as a rhetorical diversion. The point is that I want to see what the real limitations are to me if I'm forced to explain something without any props. That's how I figure out what I actually know versus what I can spin. That's what deconstruction actually is.

Chris
 
I was reading where Path was talking about appreciating pain, or being thankful for pain, or something. I don't want peace of mind. I want the dissonance. I want the struggle. I'm way, way gone from the comfort of the status quo. I want to trip along the edge.

Chris
become a resue diver...
 
people insist that there be an inherent benevolence to nature and everything.
Yeah, what's up with that? :confused:

Sure, there are attributes to nature that are awe inspiring, like standing at the base of a giant sequoia and looking to the sky. But then reality sets in when the no-see-ums start biting. Nothing like picking a deer tick off of yourself to bring you back from reverie. Oooh, look at the little bunny, just before the hawk swoops down and makes a clean kill. :eek:

I think some people hold an idealistic picture in their minds of what they want nature to be...all bunnies and doves and green grass and high tides. The *reality* of nature though is that unless one finds blood letting and poison ivy beautiful, it is kinda difficult to lay a blanket idealism of benevolence at momma nature's feet. ;)

If you don't need that, and you don't need life to read like a myth- with a hero, villain, and moral, then you don't need koans.
WARNING, limitations on understanding ahead...I still know less than nothing about koans. Having said that, I think it was J. Campbell that did all that work on heroes, villains and morality. I still don't fully grasp what he was getting at, but it seems there is more to the hero/superman story than what passes at first blush. On one hand we gravitate to our superman, he often in a tribal sense becomes the bull-male alpha leader, which means you also don't want to be on his bad side and face his wrath...unless you are fully prepared to make a legitimate challenge to his authority at the risk of your own life to become the alpha yourself (and collect his harem?).

Somewhere along the line our superman became some semi-benevolent spirit to be appeased, or actually a collection of them (looking at the Greco-Roman pantheon for example). Instead of holding a legitimate fear of a real physical brute that can pummel one, we started projecting that fear onto imagined (or at the least non-physical) entities, no doubt spawning superstitious behavior.

Tribe grows bigger, power is more disbursed, superstition becomes institutional, viola! institutional religion!

On the other hand, life is astonishingly complex and paradoxical. But again, if you don't need the Disney narrative the uncertainty is manageable. And, in fact, a large proportion of the spiritual-ish aphorisms that everyone digs so much are making that exact point. Everyone is masturbating to the idea of this essential uncertainty, but they won't actually let go. Everything is set up to discourage you from actually letting go.
I'm trying to stay with you here...I'm not sure quite how this follows. I think I get what you're saying if you are speaking of those who hold to an oversimplified view of the world and life around them, those to whom blinkers are a matter of necessity, not choice. I mean no disrespect, but an awful lot of people are so consumed with other matters, they don't have time or interest to ponder the infinite mysteries. They don't know, and they don't care to know. For them the oversimplified "Disney version" is all they can handle. I say this as a gentle observation, not a mean-hearted accusation. There are some brilliant people in the world whose minds are otherwise occupied, just as there are some people in the world whose minds are simply not up to the task.

And there are charletans who pretend to all manner of pseudo-knowledge, I can only guess to prey upon those with simpler outlooks.

Which certainly serves as a warning to those who seek with a sincere and contrite spirit. There *is* something, to me it is *out there,* perhaps others find it *in here,* but there are those sincere among us who do seek to reunite with whatever it is we intuit. There are those of us to whom reunion with the Divine is a worthwhile and meaningful pursuit in its own right, divorced from fear and pain and superstition.

Maybe you are pointed in the right general direction...but then who knows? We're all just speculating in the end, and won't find out for certain until the time comes.

(edited a dozen times to compensate for beer.)
LOL :D I can relate. Does mentally torched after 8 hours of overtime (in addition to the regular shift) compare?
 
Last edited:
Well, there can't be an ultimate base or ceiling line to semantics. Do I want to define what a "drop" of rain is, or exactly what "fall" means? I could, but the point isn't to construct a semantical pissing contest as a rhetorical diversion. The point is that I want to see what the real limitations are to me if I'm forced to explain something without any props. That's how I figure out what I actually know versus what I can spin. That's what deconstruction actually is.
Which brings us right back to: "the way that can be named is not the true way." Arguments over semantics ultimately only serve to further obfuscate the matter.

I guess I like to hear myself speak, or enjoy my own writing. I like words, words are my friends. Yet I have long thought a mark of brilliance is to be able to convey a complex concept in a few, simple words. I have met very few who are capable of this; who know what to say, how best to say it, and most important when to shut up. ;) :D
 
Yeah, what's up with that? :confused:

Sure, there are attributes to nature that are awe inspiring, like standing at the base of a giant sequoia and looking to the sky. But then reality sets in when the no-see-ums start biting. Nothing like picking a deer tick off of yourself to bring you back from reverie. Oooh, look at the little bunny, just before the hawk swoops down and makes a clean kill. :eek:

I think some people hold an idealistic picture in their minds of what they want nature to be...all bunnies and doves and green grass and high tides. The *reality* of nature though is that unless one finds blood letting and poison ivy beautiful, it is kinda difficult to lay a blanket idealism of benevolence at momma nature's feet. ;)

I think it's people mistaking benevolence for convenience. I see Nature as inherently loving and benevolent in the sense that Gaia keeps life going. The way this happens can be profoundly uncomfortable, inconvenient, and downright painful. Hence, the no-see-ums and the hawk's kill. There's a truth and beauty in there, though.

We can either try to ignore Nature's real, well, nature and think Gaia is all about fluffy bunny rabbits and sunny days, or we can acknowledge that the Goddess is also Kali and the Crone. It's not all springtime and flowered meadows. Sometimes it is tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes. Sometimes the cycles of life hurt.

Personally, I can honestly say I do find beauty in death, in poison ivy, in bacteria and viruses, in cancer. Is it convenient and fun? No. But it is the stuff of life. I can choose to live in my bubble of fluff or I can go out and truly live.

In my initiation ceremony as a Druid the meditative vision I got was destruction after destruction-- each followed by creation. There is a message there for me-- "It all leads to life." That doesn't make it all cozy and warm and comfy. But I got to a point where I can see that real beauty includes the wrinkles of the old, and the scars of the damaged, and the pain that comes with life. Decay and pain and blood and guts are as much life as new babies and flowers and birds singing. We need Kali, and yes, she is as beautiful as she is frightening. But enough time in her presence, and the fear gives way to respect and appreciation.

But it's tough to recognize all this as a US citizen. We're all about convenience and comfort. We inject poison in our foreheads to avoid our wrinkles. We take painkillers at the first hint of pain. We take carefully guided tours of nature and we encounter predators behind the safety of glass and metal at the zoo. We turn on the A/C when it is hot and the heat when it is cold and carry an umbrella when it rains. Basically, we create our artificial bubble and then view nature from within our comfort zone, pretending that the whole world works this way and seeing Mother Earth as some nice middle-aged hippie lady that has flowers in her hair and holds fuzzy new kittens. We don't see her as the Crone, aging and preparing for death. We like to ignore that She supports bacteria and viruses that kill us, too.

Truly loving Nature, truly loving Gaia, comes with appreciating the two sides of the coin. This can't happen through fluffy environmental idealism and it can't happen through seeing the earth as a "fallen" paradise. It starts with seeing the Earth for what it is, and viewing one's own discomfort with it as the limitation. Rather than project one's desires outward onto other beings, one realigns their desires with reality. One makes friends with pain and death and decay. And in so doing, finds freedom from fear and from illusion.
 
Path,
I'm going to ask you a very personal question......

Were you inside yourself or outside yourself when you wrote post 86?

- c -
 
Hi, Ciel-

I'm happy to answer, but first I would need to understand the question better. What do you mean by "yourself"?

Peace,
Path
 
Hi, Ciel-

I'm happy to answer, but first I would need to understand the question better. What do you mean by "yourself"?

Peace,
Path

Path,

I experience the "in" of "the self" as the place within where one feels most at home. The interior consciousness of peace in essence and core of being. The eternal moment. Life flows easy.

Outside "the self" relating to the pull and sway of exterior consciousness, the prompter of the universal wave of the moment. Life evaluates to retain balance.

- c -
 
Aye :),
It's been a wild weekend..........
Power lines down midst rain and wind.
Very aware of elemental force from this forested ridge.
Very aware of the necessity of holding the balance between the waves.
Thanks for your reply Path, feel the flow of peace.

- c -
 
Thanks for your reply Path, feel the flow of peace.

- c -

Thanks, Ciel. I've seen what floods and thunderstorms can do first hand. Somehow, I still find it exhilerating to go stand out in the gusting wind and driving rain. Thunder and lightening make me feel very alive. Yet, it is a balance; there is a time when I have to listen to the little animal inside me that tells me to hide and ride out the remainder of the storm. I hope one day after I am released from the body, I get to be part of the storms. I cannot even express how much joy I find in storms.

Somehow, I feel peace in even frightening circumstances in nature, but the everyday life of ordinary society gets in my way frequently. That is my challenge, I suppose. How to survive in this social life of work and bills and conversation without losing inner peace.
 
This goes back to post #86, though. We may think it kinder or more loving to do no harm, but some harm is necessary for new life to begin. Wildfires bring with them new growth- some species will not propagate without them. Floods and storms bring new life, too. The hawk and lion are no less loving than the rabbit and the wildebeast. Nature does not waste energy and life.

I am against unnecessary harm, unnecessary suffering. But there are cycles of nature that bring life from death, and new growth from destruction of the old. And in this, I find deep peace and joy. I can embrace the night, knowing it leads to the dawn.

Everything exists from everything else. We ourselves are made of old stardust and those that came before us; we are the remnant of the past.
 
"Everything exists from everything else"........

To a point, yes......

There is also always something different not existed before.

If the planet and humanity are to be healed we can't afford to cause the pain.

Or nothing shall exist........

- c -
 
I am curious- how would the planet continue to live without pain?

How would life continue to evolve without death?

What is life for one, is death and pain for another. It has always been thus. To cause no pain for the rabbit is to cause death for the hawk. To cause no pain for humanity, to stop the storms and the earthquakes, is to cause death for the earth. How would Gaia continue to evolve and change without the processes of evolution and change?
 
Path,
I understand what you are saying. I live here in a land of many wild things, including hawks and rabbits...........

My perspective is on humanity. I just cannot applaud Gaia nature or human nature when it causes harm.

You ask how would the planet live without pain. Surely with gratitude.
And do we need death to evolve when life evolves with life.

- c -
 
This flow of conversation reminds me of the struggle of the butterfly. There is a story about a boy who came across a cocoon just as the butterfly was starting to emerge. Thinking he'd help the butterfly out, he took his pen knife out and made a slit in the cocoon so that the butterfly would have an easier time getting out. But what the boy didn't realize is that the butterfly needs the struggle getting out of the cocoon so that its wings would be strengthed enough to fly. By cutting the cocoon, the butterfly's wings became too weak and it soon perished.
 
Hi Dondi,

I rescued a bee from a spiders web today........ but I left the flies. :)
When a fly fell into a pot of water I rescued the fly........
.......but put out the water........:rolleyes:
- c -
 
I guess when I ask how life would evolve without death, I'm speaking literally. Evolution relies on death to make room for new beings, and it is in the parameters of death that mutations can be sorted into deleterious and advantageous, that change can arise and be made more or less manifest. Life provides the change (mutations) but they are only meaningful in a context that includes death.

Without death, beings would either need to stop being born or would stack up until they overwhelmed the earth and all perished.

So I see death as a blessing and a doorway- a transition to new life, both for me individually and for all beings collectively.

Without death and destruction, humanity would never have arisen and the earth would have long ago been overwhelmed with other forms of life.

I can see no way that life can indefinitely continue without death to make way for it. Unless, of course, everything becomes frozen as it is, and there is no new life, only perpetuation of existing forms. To me, that seems sad. I would not want to be in a world without babies, without children, without change. I find change and new life beautiful.
 
Back
Top