Blessed are the poor in spirit

[David Quinn]

Does this "love" depend on God being conscious?

Love depends on whether one in possession of a finely-formed and highly-sensitive organism. And then rigorously and painstakingly fine-tuning that organism. Then whether God is conscious or not is of no importance. One needs only to love and there'll always be right-action. God or no god.

Is this love you speak of emotional in nature? Do you associate it with feelings of bliss?

Would you describe it as "unconditional"? Does it manifest the same way in all circumstances?

Does it fully embrace all things, without exception? Or just some things?

-

[Bob Michael]

Is this love you speak of emotional in nature? Do you associate it with feelings of bliss?

Would you describe it as "unconditional"? Does it manifest the same way in all circumstances?

Does it fully embrace all things, without exception? Or just some things?

Keeping it simple here, let me say the love I speak of is pure, unadulterated, and above all, active 'Impersonal Love'. The greatest of all possible gifts. And I would add the rarest too.

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge (and all wisdom - mine); and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing." (Paul)

[David Quinn]

Is this love you speak of emotional in nature? Do you associate it with feelings of bliss?

Would you describe it as "unconditional"? Does it manifest the same way in all circumstances?

Does it fully embrace all things, without exception? Or just some things?

Keeping it simple here, let me say the love I speak of is pure, unadulterated, and above all, active 'Impersonal Love'. The greatest of all possible gifts. And I would add the rarest too.

You're retreating back into vagueness here. I think it would help all of us, including yourself, if you answered these questions more sincerely.

-

[Bob Michael]

You're retreating back into vagueness here. I think it would help all of us, including yourself, if you answered these questions more sincerely.

I don't think so, David. What I said or say either tweaks a person's heart or conscience for the better or it doesn't. Adding more verbage won't really help matters here. It'll only tend to cloud things up. And I happen to think I'm a very open, honest, sincere, and responsible person. If I wasn't my realtionship with the Infinite wouldn't bring so much joy and goodness into my life on a daily basis.

[Blair]

No, you are an insincere fucking douchebag.

Get real mate, you might get bopped talking the shite you do.

[Bob Michael]

No, you are an insincere fucking douchebag. Get real mate, you might get bopped talking the shite you do.

Thanks for your concern, prince, but the Truth contains its own protection.

[m4tt_666]

No, you are an insincere fucking douchebag.

Get real mate, you might get bopped talking the shite you do.

hahahahahaha.

[Blair]

No, you are an insincere fucking douchebag. Get real mate, you might get bopped talking the shite you do.

Thanks for your concern, prince, but the Truth contains its own protection.

Nah you're just a fucking idiot, and that's the end of the matter.

You are talking to one who is so far above you it's not even fathomable.

The truth is not on your side, protecting you. Nothing is. Wait and see.

[David Quinn]

You're retreating back into vagueness here. I think it would help all of us, including yourself, if you answered these questions more sincerely.

I don't think so, David. What I said or say either tweaks a person's heart or conscience for the better or it doesn't. Adding more verbage won't really help matters here. It'll only tend to cloud things up.

I doubt that anyone will be fooled by such comments.

And I happen to think I'm a very open, honest, sincere, and responsible person. If I wasn't my realtionship with the Infinite wouldn't bring so much joy and goodness into my life on a daily basis.

Surely you must know that joy can come from many different sources, including egotistical ones. How have you actually determined that your joy is truly pure and infinite in nature, and not just the result of being religiously immersed in egotistical fantasy?

I think you have made some strides, but you're not giving me the confidence that you have truly looked into this matter deeply and broken through into ultimate understanding.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

One can have the purest heart and have the highest of intentions - these are easier to self-assess, but it's too easy for a person to think that they are wise enough when they are not. Especially if one encounters a con artist - which is actually more likely when you exude love, because they look for that as the sign of an easier mark.

I understand and agree here. But even if a good woman doesn't encounter a con artist, chances are next to nil that she'll encounter a man who can genuinely love. They're virtually non-existent in these last days.

I expect that there are a lot of men who can genuinely love in the impersonal sense that you refer to in another post, but many fall short of it by becoming spellbound by physical beauty, then shower personal love indiscriminately on those who are physically beautiful but psychologically ugly.

most likely stems from a mismatched relation of competent brain function and physical beauty.

With "competent brain function" there springs forth from a woman (or a man) an inner beauty and radiance that far surpasses even the best of 'physical beauty'.

True, but many men are blind to inner beauty. This can be the result.

This does not mean that they are incapable of a universal love. It may mean that it never occurred to them that they should direct their love in that manner.

the love I speak of is pure, unadulterated, and above all, active 'Impersonal Love'.

Specifically, what do you do to make your love active?

[m4tt_666]

I don't think so, David. What I said or say either tweaks a person's heart or conscience for the better or it doesn't. Adding more verbage won't really help matters here. It'll only tend to cloud things up.

while it is fact we can never irrefutably express our genuine opinion about such matters, you forget that you, and therefore any previous thought or opinion you may hold to any given subject may change, or better put, adapt at any given second.

it is also fact we can only infer, at best what another is thinking by way of physical communication and any relevant detail one can give to a discussion will only help to further clarify and define ones point of view.

[Bob Michael]

I doubt that anyone will be fooled by such comments.

I'm not here or anywhere for that matter to fool anyone. To do so is only to fool myself. My only concern is to help in the awakening and the enlightenment of others. And using you own words here David, " I just focus on being as truthful as possible in my every expression and leave the rest up to God. Whether or not this has an impact on the wider world is entirely out of my hands. And I don't really care either way." Though again, and unlike yourself, I do care. So I need to be constantly self-critically aware in order to eradicate every last remant of the conditioned self.

Surely you must know that joy can come from many different sources, including egotistical ones. How have you actually determined that your joy is truly pure and infinite in nature, and not just the result of being religiously immersed in egotistical fantasy?

Yes, this is true. However after years of trials and tribulations along with the constant awakening and refinement of the long-dead or atrophied senses, one learns to know or better yet feel the difference.

I think you have made some strides, but you're not giving me the confidence that you have truly looked into this matter deeply and broken through into ultimate understanding.

That's nice of you to say you think I've made some strides, David. But so far as your confidence or the lack thereof in me goes, I needn't have my report card signed by anyone anymore. Certainly no human powers or judges. My Heavenly Father takes care of that. And I've made my "ultimate understanding" quite clear herein. Though it seems much like a hot potato. But then I can understand this.

[Bob Michael]

I expect that there are a lot of men who can genuinely love in the impersonal sense that you refer to in another post, but many fall short of it by becoming spellbound by physical beauty, then shower personal love indiscriminately on those who are physically beautiful but psychologically ugly. True, but many men are blind to inner beauty. This does not mean that they are incapable of a universal love. It may mean that it never occurred to them that they should direct their love in that manner. Specifically, what do you do to make your love active?

Love is not something that can be simply turned on or off at will. First one must have the innate capacity or foundation for love, which relatively few people do, and second, he must then develop that capacity to its fullest. And in order to do this one must fully engage himself in the process of rigorously honest soul-searching, which would involve discovering and rooting out every last trace of what is "psychologically ugly" in himself.

"There is nothing which is more necessary and precious in the experience of human childhood than parental love.....nothing more precious, because the parental love experienced in childhood is moral capital for the whole of life.....lt is precious, this experience, that it renders us capable of elevating ourselves to more sublime things - even divine things. It is thanks to the experience of parental love that our soul is capable of raising itself to the love of God." (Valentin Tomberg)

"To love is the greatest thing in life; and it is very important to talk about love, to feel it, to treasure it, otherwise it is soon dissipated, for the world is very brutal. If while you are young you don't feel love, if you don't look with love at people, at animals, at flowers, when you grow up you will find that your life is empty; you will be very lonely, and the dark shadows of fear will follow you always." (J. Krishnamurti)

[Blair]

"There is nothing which is more necessary and precious in the experience of human childhood than parental love.....nothing more precious, because the parental love experienced in childhood is moral capital for the whole of life.....lt is precious, this experience, that it renders us capable of elevating ourselves to more sublime things - even divine things. It is thanks to the experience of parental love that our soul is capable of raising itself to the love of God." (Valentin Tomberg)

Tell that to the millions of males around the world who were genitally mutilated at birth, who's parents did nothing to prevent it, or even requested it.

The Love of god? The will of God?

Give me a fucking break.

[Bob Michael]

Tell that to the millions of males around the world who were genitally mutilated at birth, who's parents did nothing to prevent it, or even requested it.

The same thing is true of females. And it's simply the result of an intrinsic 'fall' in the evolution of the human species, which can only lead to the long-foreseen "abomination that maketh desolate." Or a grand-cleansing of the neurologically botched from the planet. And no one's to blame, nor are these things avoidable or preventable. The will of God or the will of Evolution is fully and eternally in command of things. Man simply is not yet the all-knowing and all-powerful bigshot that he thinks he is.

[m4tt_666]

The will of God or the will of Evolution is fully and eternally in command of things.

...really?

[Bob Michael]

...really?

...perfectly!

[Luke Breuer]

Eckhart
Is anyone here fooled into thinking that Eckhart’s statements are well-supported by the Bible? There is a saying, “never read a Bible verse”, and I sadly think it applies to what Eckhart is saying. Now, I could be wrong in how I am interpreting him, given that what we have is a translation of a text that is probably more sensitive to translational choices than many.

My biggest complaint, and this is really wielded against the theory of attachment in general, is that it does not seem to harmonize with examples such as King David, who is described as “a man after God’s own heart”. Jesus knew he was described as a “glutton and a drunkard”; there was also a disciple whom he loved. The idea of detachment I have recently taken from scripture is that Christians must attach first and most strongly to God via Jesus; any attachments to people must be secondary and any attachments to material things must be strictly tertiary. This asymmetry is critical and, from brief skimmings of David Quinn’s work and a search of the forums, it is a concept not discussed, at least by the word “asymmetry”.

Finally, Paul learned how to be content in any situation. Perhaps I do not understand attachment correctly, but I am quite certain that Paul knew how to enjoy earthly things without predicating his happiness upon them. I do not think Eckhart mastered this art and I think his skewed, provincial view of the Faith threatens to be very damaging!

Eckhart is no different than was Jesus or the Buddha

I don’t know much about Buddha, but I do know that Jesus did not speak like the translated version of Eckhart. Jesus came as a doctor not just for the soul, but for the flesh as well! Eckhart seems to take no accounting of the flesh; this might be better than improperly elevating the flesh, but I remind you that Jesus still ate in his resurrected form. Lastly, when Jesus said “Not my will but Thine be done.”, I’m not sure he has zero will at play. Instead, I interpret this as being very careful when our own wills deviate from God’s. Otherwise, what is the meaning of Psalm 37:4?

If one's understanding of God is imperfect

Scripturally, this is not possible when starting from mortal form; even Jesus did not know the time of his second coming. Do you claim to be able to do something Jesus could not, while encased in flesh?

The latter is literally experiencing God without delusion.

Is it possible to regain delusion from a delusion-free state? If so, how? Perhaps being delusion-free means pulling up all the weeds, but not protecting the ground against seeds and spores that may drift in on the wind? I am not very comfortable with this argument; I cannot find a definition of “delusion-free” that means anything other than, “my particular thoughts at the time were right on the mark”. This is very different from having all of one’s memories and “processors” purged from impurities.

I see the purification process of abandoning delusions as entering an abattoir, where bit by bit, chunk by chunk, attachments are cut away by the sharp sword of reason.

If “reason” wished to claim all the glory for this, it would state things exactly as you have. How do you know you are not idolizing reason? Indeed, I do not believe deductive logic can create all axioms; I’m not sure any logic can create all axioms. If so, why have faith in one thing instead of another—given that you cannot use reason for choosing the most fundamental axioms? There appear to be chinks in your armor, but perhaps you have discussed this particular topic elsewhere?

Love

That "God is Love" probably has the deepest meaning of them all to me.

How do you define “Love”? C.S. Lewis’ Till We Have Faces is an excellent primer on the topic; he considered it his best work, but alas, many preferred the work that he liked writing the least (Screwtape Letters). I see that you continued to discuss it, so please respond only after you have read the rest of my post.

There's divine or spiritual love which manifests from a pure heart or conscience, and there's worldly or mundane love which manifests from an impure heart or a fragmented conscience.

Till We Have Faces definitely gets at this concept, in a way I found particularly motivating. That being said, what are you using to differentiate between these two kinds of love?

Is this love you speak of emotional in nature? Do you associate it with feelings of bliss?

I think we all know there are multiple kinds of love. Can you make a case that emotional love can never lead to good things? I have not been able to do this myself.

Would you describe it as "unconditional"? Does it manifest the same way in all circumstances?

These are questions, while not orthogonal, have a smaller inner product than you seem to think. A parent who loves his son might yell harshly at his son in one situation (e.g. if the son is about to do something life-threatening), while he might speak tenderly in another (e.g. his son just broke up with his first girlfriend).

Does it fully embrace all things, without exception? Or just some things?

Does love embrace evil? This gets into “love the sinner but hate the sin”; I’m not sure what this forum’s cultural view is on that idea.

Yes, this is true. However after years of trials and tribulations along with the constant awakening and refinement of the long-dead or atrophied senses, one learns to know or better yet feel the difference.

I’m not sure it is “better yet”; I do believe we can tune our emotions, but I am wary of giving any part of the brain a permanent upper-hand. That being said, I believe I can greatly understand you and empathize with you. The fact that I am able to sharply divide between emotion and logic was not a painlessly-acquired skill. I have, however, learned that love can be worth the sacrifice, worth the suffering. Wisdom, as usual, is absolutely critical. Which you have acknowledged. :-)

Love without wisdom can be downright fatal. Not only to the body but also to one's human spirit.

Ever heard the saying "love is blind?"

There are many ways that sentence could be interpreted; the only form I can find to approve is that love is impartial. Impartiality is a very selective kind of blindness.

[Alex Jacob]

As to: "Scripturally, this is not possible when starting from mortal form; even Jesus did not know the time of his second coming. Do you claim to be able to do something Jesus could not, while encased in flesh?"

I am sure you will soon get a grasp of it, but the Quinn-Rowden-Solway (and it seems also Kelly Jones) position is that, somehow, one can mentally reason in such a way that one grasps the nature of the Totality (an odd an incomprehensible term that is crucial to them), and when one achieves this, which appears to be a ruthless and even brutal mental activity, one arrives at some level of 'correct perception' that is absolute and complete. Indeed, it is the ONLY basis on which to construct an ethic of 'sane living'. Kelly seems to take this premise very, very seriously, perhaps more than David, and David, more than before, seems inclined toward a very personal mysticism.

They have, as far as I am able to tell, little but outright contempt for 'scripture' except, perhaps, those parts where Jesus states (as they suppose) that one must cut all ties and connections to all people before one can attain 'enlightenment'. They also seem to appreciate the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic teachings but only if they point to this abstract praxis.

I am trying to be of service because these things are hard to glean. The Q-R-S relationship to Christianity (or any theistically-oriented religious view) is very problematic. There is a tremendous appreciation if also imitation of Kierkegaard, but somewhat AFTER they have carefully winnowed every Christian or 'Biblical' notion out of him. If Kierkegaard can be made to expound neo-Buddhism, all is well and good. But any utterance of his that is personalist and humanitarianist or referent to Jewish scripture and this 'historical project', it is described as merely an erroneous by-product of his age, and something he himself didn't really believe.

Welcome to the forum BTW!

[Robert]

I am trying to be of service because these things are hard to glean.

Hey Alex.

These things aren't hard to glean at all, in fact I think that part of the service you provide here is to unwittingly guide those interested (and who aren't necessarily those folks you're directly speaking to) towards the very same territory that you bid they dare not trespass. Forbidden fruit and all, ya know?

[Tomas]

I am trying to be of service because these things are hard to glean.

Hey Alex.

These things aren't hard to glean at all, in fact I think that part of the service you provide here is to unwittingly guide those interested (and who aren't necessarily those folks you're directly speaking to) towards the very same territory that you bid they dare not trespass. Forbidden fruit and all, ya know?

Yup. That one .. single tree .. that blocks the forest.

"Truth is the first chapter in the book of wisdom." - Thomas Jefferson

[Diebert van Rhijn]

but I do know that Jesus did not speak like the translated version of Eckhart. Jesus came as a doctor not just for the soul

No, you don't know that at all. You're making it up and trying to get away with lying like all that calls itself "Christian" these days.

You're in the wrong forum, mate, if you thought for a moment the existence of Jesus, Eckhart or any of their translators and differing interpretations mattered here. Don't waste your valuable time! Eckhart appears to have been prosecuted by the same authorities the likes of C.S Lewis submitted to, and he had even the guts to defend the despicable actions of the Church against perceived heresy! Yet, I'm still grateful for Lewis his contributions - I was once a babe too.

[Luke Breuer]

I am sure you will soon get a grasp of it, but the Quinn-Rowden-Solway (and it seems also Kelly Jones) position is that, somehow, one can mentally reason in such a way that one grasps the nature of the Totality (an odd an incomprehensible term that is crucial to them), and when one achieves this, which appears to be a ruthless and even brutal mental activity, one arrives at some level of 'correct perception' that is absolute and complete. Indeed, it is the ONLY basis on which to construct an ethic of 'sane living'. Kelly seems to take this premise very, very seriously, perhaps more than David, and David, more than before, seems inclined toward a very personal mysticism.

I would be interested in how said absoluteness and completeness are tested. I do not deny that absolute truth exists, but I am quite aware of people who claim to have access to it but do not. Generally, I look for two things: A) is this person’s so-called knowledge of absolute truth benefiting others, and B) does this so-called knowledge of absolute excuse the individual from responsibilities commonly attributed to mankind? I fear that the idea of enlightenment and “correct perception” are Gnostic in nature, but I’ve only really scratched the surface. I do tend to question knowledge that [allegedly] cannot be communicated with relative ease.

They have, as far as I am able to tell, little but outright contempt for 'scripture' except, perhaps, those parts where Jesus states (as they suppose) that one must cut all ties and connections to all people before one can attain 'enlightenment'. They also seem to appreciate the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic teachings but only if they point to this abstract praxis.

Heh, I guessed “Gnostic” before reading your second paragraph. I tend to call the approach you describe “cherry-picking”. Claiming that it works is like pretending that you can poke a spider’s web and not perturb the whole thing. I don’t mean to say that there is no such thing as truth mixed with lies, but I do intend to demand a rigorous defense of exactly what reasoning is being used, as well as a demonstration that said reasoning is being used consistently. From what you say, they are not respecting Jesus, but simply using him. Let’s just say that scripture has nothing nice to say about this treatment—along the lines of “God is not mocked” and “God’s Word does not return void”.

I do find it amusing that someone would heed Jesus’ sayings of “losing one’s life”, and yet ignore the second Greatest Commandment.

I am trying to be of service because these things are hard to glean. The Q-R-S relationship to Christianity (or any theistically-oriented religious view) is very problematic. There is a tremendous appreciation if also imitation of Kierkegaard, but somewhat AFTER they have carefully winnowed every Christian or 'Biblical' notion out of him. If Kierkegaard can be made to expound neo-Buddhism, all is well and good. But any utterance of his that is personalist and humanitarianist or referent to Jewish scripture and this 'historical project', it is described as merely an erroneous by-product of his age, and something he himself didn't really believe.

In this case, I may be of service to you and others on this forum. For all my failings, I do have a strong systematizing tendency. I don’t force square pegs into round holes, but I do have some ability to detect the kind of inconsistency you allude to; being an experienced software developer, I am well acquainted with the need to properly evaluate dependencies. Arguments are predicated on assumptions; unless Q-R-S want to abandon formal logic whenever they please (and thus admit to be driven by something other than reason), I will do my best to show them what they must accept, given what they claim to accept.

Welcome to the forum BTW!

Thank you! Please let me know if my directness and tendency to sometimes omit protocol-words (such as “seems”, “often”, and “perhaps”) is unacceptable. I prefer it when I don’t have to be absolutely precise everywhere (otherwise I would just make everything a formal argument); this seems like a forum where there is a decent ability to interpolate and therefore attack what matters instead of what is incidental.

[Luke Breuer]

No, you don't know that at all. You're making it up and trying to get away with lying like all that calls itself "Christian" these days.

Please articulate and defend this statement.

You're in the wrong forum, mate, if you thought for a moment the existence of Jesus, Eckhart of their translators and interpretation mattered here.

If the participants in this forum care not for consistency of their logical reasoning, you are correct. What I have a problem with is the twisting of someone’s words into something that the person never meant. There is a difference between, “Jesus inspired me to think about this” and “this is what Jesus was saying”. Does this make sense?

Yet, I'm still grateful for Lewis his contributions - I was once a babe too.

Would you be willing to direct me to some writings that explain the “babeness” of Lewis’ writings?

[Alex Jacob]

Robert wrote: "These things aren't hard to glean at all, in fact I think that part of the service you provide here is to unwittingly guide those interested (and who aren't necessarily those folks you're directly speaking to) towards the very same territory that you bid they dare not trespass. Forbidden fruit and all, ya know?"

Hello Robert. I think they may be a little harder to glean than you imagine, and perhaps especially for one who just jumps right in. In any case, here's my question to you: Was my assessment fair and accurate? Honestly, I was trying to be precise in what I said. I admit that I do not understand at all what the QRS position is in its 'deeper sense' (if indeed it exists). But I think I have accurately described their use of 'reason' to grasp 'the totality', et cetera.

Robert, if one is, say, preaching to certain folks, the chances are high that one will only reach those folks who already 'vibrate' at that frequency, right? Do you think it happens that someone who has a strict 'QRS' viewpoint all on the sudden sees some blinding light, hears a voice that comes out of nowhere, and gets established on a radically NEW path? I think we are partisans of our own parties. At the very least we are here participating...and it all stays reasonably civil, doesn't it?

And if I serve an unwitting function for your party, well that's all for the very good, right?