Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Cathy Preston » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:03 pm

Jesus had already died to the world, there was no martydom. Once dead to the world Jesus was always about his father's business. It seems that the purpose of his father's business was and is, like Buddhism, the freeing of more souls. In one action he delivered countless. The path to truth is not paved with guilt. Self loathing may be a ticket to ride, but the self loathing has to be resolved before any real progress is made.

Christendom may be a dead train that never left the station, but what path to truth is NOT eventually a dead end and must be abandoned. Even Buddhism with it's great teachers rots on the vine with its empty rituals and binding traditions. Its the individual who takes flight never the system.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Talking Ass » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:29 pm

To say I have a 'mental block', David, is to place a sort of pathology on me. This is the first step in the GF definition-process. Fine. This is basically what all of us do. Then, we seek the ur-narrative that offers us the ultimate Rx tool (Rx: recipe or prescription: treatment, cure). If you are Hindu, you establish that sort of enormous metaphysical model and define life here as a kind of Hell. If you are post-Hindu (Buddhist) you modify that 'naming' project, invert the terms as it were, but you still look for an 'out'. There are many mental systems floating around, or rather they are as ghostly visitors and they 'haunt' people who don't really know what to choose or how to choose. To get clear about all of them, to examine them and consider them, is very needed.

You too are part of such a project. But you have twisted things to suit your own 'tendentiousness'. If I say, as I do, that I oppose your tendentious project you will say that I reject then 'God', or the ineffable, or 'eternity'. You place the stamp of these terms on your own self. If I reject 'you', in your mind you interpret that to mean that I reject the things those terms refer to. The message or the meaning in them. Yet I remain within spirituality and 'spiritual concerns' while I am forced to avoid and to some extent reject your language-use. What you then do, or so it seems to me, is to trivialize [in comparison to your grand abstractions: 'God' (your own and very peculiar term, as defined by you, which you should really reject for the confusion it causes), 'Infinity', 'the Absolute' and so on] you trivialize all attempts to keep these terms and their use 'on the ground' and within an immediate temporal framework.

When I noted that you lacked any grasp at all of the context of 'Jesus', or the actual value-structure of a 'sophisticated' Christian valuation, and that once again you claim such definitions as Christendom and so many other Christian terms (as in the parables, etc.) and squeeze them into your own narrow slot of meaning, it pushed me to dig deeper and to try to discover all that you passed over in ignorance. I cannot blame you, necessarily, because this is a pan-cultural effort to destroy the conceptual links that connect 'us' to these ideas and traditions. Because we have lost the genii that is a subtle being or skill of divination and interpretation in this strange Hermetic sense, the connection to the symbols that are part of the 'symbolization of the divine' has been severed. With this, any reference I might make to the Jewish or the Christian traditions, I assume, finds no echo-board in most everyone who writes here. Now, the reason that you reject all this material, the reason that you cannot define 'links' to the symbols and to the 'facts' on the ground and 'in the flesh', is indeed a complex one. The one here who *claims* what is described as an almost superhuman comprehension of these traditions and symbols is our own Darling Diebert [*pious genuflections, deep bow*]. At every turn he makes these grandiose claims. But when push comes to shove what he offers up is a mild fart and nothing more. This, to me, is very peculiar. I assume that that terrible beast Nihilism has had its way with him in a degree that he is loth to admit. He is the man in which that *connecting link* has died, in fact.

The problem is in how to communicate the value of riches. You, for example, wish to present *riches*---your 'jewels'. But actually, you describe them in the vaguest and most 'abstract' manner. I have read you for some years now and you make vague references to 'value' but your language can't reach it, or what you value is [apparently] substanceless. In other words, I don't believe it. I don't believe your discourse about your *values* and I don't believe it has Value. Or as much value as you try to claim. So then, the question, for me, turns back on Values: what shall we value? Where shall we locate Meaning? I suggest or insist that you do not have the right nor the cogency to take over and dominate the whole question of Values or Meaning. At the worse, Dennis is a reflection of an underbelly of your devaluation project. It is a dark realm where he *lives*, IMO.

In the sense of 'the stone that the builders rejected' [sorry, I could not resist], I am FORCED by the depthlessness of some who write here to reinvestigate all this area and territory that is rejected. I feel I am rooting around among the refuse of Golgotha! like I am down on my knees in the tomb where the stone was rolled back looking for clues! [Don't take this exactly seriously I say it just for fun]. But instead of following the direction of the Culture-at-Large which has had destroyed or is itself destroying these connecting links to the Jewish and Christian tradition, I am, in perfect anachronism, finding tremendous value within them. But I am not a 'believer' in the sense you may assume. The only thing a religious tradition can do is to help you define Value and Meaning as a means through which you will live your life. What it SOUNDS like to me is that you radically sever your relatedness to many different levels of meaning and value as you shear-off from a relationship to your own body. But you see with body (Greek: soma) and 'flesh' (Greek: sarz) is EXACTLY the area upon which and in which the 'Christian Mysteries' hold their focus. We seem to have a definition issue. I have the sense that I am closer to Kierkegaard's prime focus than you, simply by virtue of the fact that I have no alternative but to remain within this area of focus: soma and sarz. I am sure that this is gobbledeegook to you and many who read here, but in this we can see that Hermeneutics is a very tricky area. To see and yet not to be able to see. To hear and yet not to be able to hear: we are indeed dealing within areas such as these. And it is principally on the basis of inversions such as this (since you obviously believe you SEE: meaning, you do and others don't) wherein I delight myself!
_________________________________________________

Interesting post, Cathy. Reminds me that in the Gnostic traditions (I have been told)(actually it is referenced a lot on the books of Harold Bloom) they say that this 'Jesus' resurrected first in life, and then he died. That inversion twists the whole thing in such a way that a great deal more *meaning* can arise for immediate use. But, it even inverts a little what you wrote. Because if one 'resurrects' into Life, what might that mean? for us, in the here and now? To me, that is the best question.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Talking Ass » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:34 am

Liberty Sea wrote: Alex, allow me to call you Alex, as others do. Are you interested in Truth and truths?
Esteemed Colleague, your question seems so very peculiar to me. I am surprised that you do not recognize that it is a classical rhetorical question and that I can neither answer nor not answer it and actually answer it! Surely you must see this?

It is, in fact, the perfect Question for you to offer a discourse on that which you had in mind. ;-)

I am all ears...(Here, I just took this on my Android Smartphone and I submit it as Exhibit 1: 'Donkey has ears to hear').
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Cathy Preston » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:56 am

Interesting post, Cathy. Reminds me that in the Gnostic traditions (I have been told)(actually it is referenced a lot on the books of Harold Bloom) they say that this 'Jesus' resurrected first in life, and then he died. That inversion twists the whole thing in such a way that a great deal more *meaning* can arise for immediate use. But, it even inverts a little what you wrote. Because if one 'resurrects' into Life, what might that mean? for us, in the here and now? To me, that is the best question.


Resurrection into life, you can't pour water into a full pitcher, much like the father can't breathe life into someone who believes he already lives. For us in practical terms, in the here and now, it means the only exploration that is of serious benefit is self exploration, which ends in its own annihilation.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Talking Ass does not stop. He cuts to the chase in this one:

Postby Talking Ass » Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:26 am

Cathy wrote: "It seems that the purpose of his father's business was and is, like Buddhism, the freeing of more souls."
The thing is, that this is not quite accurate. One makes the assumption that this is so because it fits with our desire that it be so. Perhaps you can say that the 'desire' of the 'Buddha' was to 'free souls'. Okay. Why not? The narratives of Buddhism certainy say as much, but they do so because all of Hinduism and 'Vedic' material proposes such a trajectory in all manifested worlds.

Oddly enough, within the narratives of Christianity, and directly within the discourse of 'Jesus', is awareness of a schizm. Some will hear the message and ['be saved'/fill in your own meaning of what 'salvation' means], but most others will not! This 'message' and this 'meaning' is 'for a select few'. And the getting of message/meaning occurs within a locality ['the world'] in which *not-capture-meaning* has the reign ['Satan']. So, this Jesus-figure is a cryptologist who imbeds his discourse with hints about this *meaning* that may be captured even as he is aware that it will not be captured. This Jesus, in comparison to 'The Buddha', is a sort of sly-fox or even a weasel!

There is even a darker part: where the meaning is deliberately withheld and there is a sort of collusion with those who refuse to 'turn' from their own perdition! God as sadist-of-sorts. Who seems to say: 'Okay, you wish to play it your way! Ha ha, I'll help you to do so. And then delight in the look on your face when you see the cost! You can't see it now, but you will!' (Etc.)

Mark has it best:

    "Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water’s edge. He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: “Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times.”

    Then Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

    When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,

    'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
    and ever hearing but never understanding;
    otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'

    Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? The farmer sows the word. Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown.”

Robert Frost in the poem Directive, makes use of the image [and the meaning?]:

    I have kept hidden in the instep arch
    Of an old cedar at the waterside
    A broken drinking goblet like the Grail
    Under a spell so the wrong ones can't find it,
    So can't get saved, as Saint Mark says they mustn't.
    (I stole the goblet from the children's playhouse.)
    Here are your waters and your watering place.
    Drink and be whole again beyond confusion.

If there is anything that more marks our 'age', it is the idea that there exist 'Truths' that are not easily gotten and yet which are essential. We are tantalized by them, David for example declares to all who'll listen 'I have found them!', and in so many words this is what we all are doing: attempting to reveal truths to others. Apparently, our lives are deeply wound up in this project.
________________________________________________

Cathy wrote: "Resurrection into life, you can't pour water into a full pitcher, much like the father can't breathe life into someone who believes he already lives. For us in practical terms, in the here and now, it means the only exploration that is of serious benefit is self exploration, which ends in its own annihilation."
I think I get the idea. I am not at all convinced that what you write is factually true, however. I cannot take it, like a pill, simply because you have it as a pill. Many people live lives of great depth and value and meaning without 'annihilating the self'.

Still, there is no doubt that this 'self' is the primary arena of activity. Is purification of self perhaps a better word/idea?
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Cathy Preston » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:14 am

I think I get the idea. I am not at all convinced that what you write is factually true, however. I cannot take it, like a pill, simply because you have it as a pill. Many people live lives of great depth and value and meaning without 'annihilating the self'.


No good student could, to accept anything like a pill could be compared to the sowing of seeds on rocky places.

The implication that the word must be hidden from some people simply points to the fact that some people are completely enthralled with the world, the love affair with all things worldly is in full swing, and telling them they should hate it and look for a way out falls on deaf ears.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Kunga » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:59 am

Buddha lived a life of luxury before his Enlightenment. I think it's much easier to have first enjoyed life [got a good jucy taste of it...fully emersed, intoxicated]
only then can you finally see how everything you love eventually ends....that it's all temporary...finally detaching from it all....you detach so throughly you abhor life, preform austerities....almost lose your life living off one grain of rice per day.......then realize...the middle way....

All in all..Buddha & Jesus were the epitome of compassion....love was their philosophy...the heart/mind logic.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Comparing Buddha, Jesus and The Talking Ass

Postby Talking Ass » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:03 am

Cathy wrote: "The implication that the word must be hidden from some people simply points to the fact that some people are completely enthralled with the world, the love affair with all things worldly is in full swing, and telling them they should hate it and look for a way out falls on deaf ears."
Well, I would hold back and take a few steps backward and look at the 'problem' first before jumping into an Rx about it. Narrative interpretation, from one age to the next, is especially fraught. Still, this is one of the principal cores of the Jesusonian message, and [to make this germane to GF and to David] it is they [GF] who 'shout from the rooftops' their special message which 'the world' choses to ignore. The boy-geniuses of Geniusland have put their ears to the tracks, they have plumbed the depths of matter & meaning and now they have a kerygma which they ache to reveal 'to all who will listen'.

But I do not go along with them into the territory they have staked out. I seem to repeat this and repeat it again ENDLESSLY, but it has to do with valuation and also with meaning. If you understand and value 'Life' you will create an ethical system that offers strategies for living in life and for doing that 'well', or 'fully', or according to some model or proposition of 'sanctification'. That would be the same as 'sagacity', according to Sri David. It is likely, if not necessary, that such phrasing as 'a way out' will have to be deeply reconsidered. Indeed, the message of this 'Jesus' was also 'the Kingdom of heaven has come near', and 'it is here and it is not seen'. If this is so, it points in a special way to here; not 'there' and not 'out'.

The issue of senseless materialism is really what you are talking about. It is not that there is a way out of this material condition we are in, but that we have to value our material condition in a [radically] different way. So, it is not so much a 'way out' as it is a 'way in'. Here is a simple statement sure to make the boy-geniuses barf up their gruel for the use of the word 'love':

    People were created to be loved
    Things were created to be used
    The reason the world is in chaos
    Is because things are being loved
    And people are being used.

I admit it is a little hokey. Still, the idea is sound. I suggest that a viable interpretation of the 'message' that cannot be heard, and the inner core of the secret message [of this 'Jesus'] has to do with the way that life here is valued, and that 'life' in this sense means at its core people. That is 100% in accord with the Biblical message. The Living Water in the 'chalice' to be drunk by any who are willing has to do with inbibing value, which is a realization about value, which is sobriety, responsibility, uprightness, clear-mindedness. But at the core of it is a deep humanism. This 'interpretation', if you wish to call it that [and it is], is essentially far more in accord with the context of this 'Jesus' and certainly with the prophetic antecedents. There is NOTHING about 'annihilation of self' there, and so much other crazy shit you people come up with that to me seems to express your over-the-top but misplaced radicalism. Your troubled nihilistic condition. Your confusion. The deep trouble you are in.

This 'radicalism' is, I suggest, is a 'mishearing' which at times begins to sound like 'deliberate mishearing' or 'willful mishearing'. It could also be said to be the 'thorny ground' that chokes out 'the seed' that is planted. [Etc., etc.]

Cathy, will you consider taking my email course? Tell me about your lawn. Anything like this? If so, we might work out a trade for mutual benefit.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Cathy Preston » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:45 am

the talking ass said:

People were created to be loved
Things were created to be used
The reason the world is in chaos
Is because things are being loved
And people are being used.


Yes its much easier to believe a trickster is mucking about, creating havoc, than come to the stark realization that our creations are completely irrelevant. An empty thing only ever creates empty things. To be resurrected into life, is not a reaffirmation of the illusion but a total letting go of it.

As for your other invitation I'll get back to ya.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Talking Ass » Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:09 am

Cathy wrote: "Yes its much easier to believe a trickster is mucking about, creating havoc, than come to the stark realization that our creations are completely irrelevant. An empty thing only ever creates empty things. To be resurrected into life, is not a reaffirmation of the illusion but a total letting go of it."
I take it that when you say 'trickster' you mean 'Satan'? [You have to understand that word/idea in the context in which it was spoken].

But okay, so when one is 'resurrected into life' in the precise sense you mean, what happens then? Does one just up and die? Does one, because I assume one is now the opposite of 'empty', now create new, 'full' things? Can you provide an example of a community of people who live in this new fullness? (Or whatever you refer to).

The Answer: It is essentially with this---the step that you cannot or will not take with integrity (that is, to offer a cogent answer)---that you reveal I think the flaw in your 'reasoning', which is not really thinking on the ground but playing within childish fantasies. [Hello David].

The actual answer to the question is that anyone and everyone, Buddhist or anything else, will find themselves in precisely the same body, in time, on the Earth, with exactly all the same issues and problems, attempting to work it all out. There is no 'magic solution'.

Please talk about your 'total letting go'. In concrete and exact terms.

As to My Literary Output (the email course) you may wish to start with a sort of 'primer' into Donkey Philosophy. Now don't think this is simple stuff. It is playful and light-hearted but more deadly than the heart's most deadly poison! No-Good, The Dancing Donkey. I have an adult version too, if you'd prefer.

As for your other invitation I'll get back to ya.
Okay. When though? I've got bookings through the Summer with other disciples. Also, please send a photo of your lawn. On it everything depends...
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Cathy Preston » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:00 am

But okay, so when one is 'resurrected into life' in the precise sense you mean, what happens then? Does one just up and die? Does one, because I assume one is now the opposite of 'empty', now create new, 'full' things? Can you provide an example of a community of people who live in this new fullness? (Or whatever you refer to).


One has already died, remember the father can't breathe life into one who believes he lives. If you see a mirage and run to it for a drink only to realize its an illusion do you still bend down to drink, would you build a shrine around it? The one remains empty resting in the primordial essence, or resting in his father's kingdom, with effortless ease I follow the Tao, I go about my father's business.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

The Talking Ass is the Buddha is Jesus is The Talking Ass

Postby Talking Ass » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:10 am

Cathy writes: One has already died, remember the father can't breathe life into one who believes he lives. If you see a mirage and run to it for a drink only to realize its an illusion do you still bend down to drink, would you build a shrine around it? The one remains empty resting in the primordial essence, or resting in his father's kingdom, with effortless ease I follow the Tao, I go about my father's business.
Hold on, I haven't accepted anything. I am only trying to get inside the internal logic of your ideas. I don't know what 'death' means. And you don't either, my dear! I suggest that you are fronting, and what that means is you are sending up some ideas, in buddhese, you have about 'spiritual life'. And who is this 'Father'? This 'father' will 'do something'? Sounds to me like you are speaking of a God with a will, a plan, and some processes. Unless of course these are metaphors and 'symbolizations of divinity' in which case you must please translate them out of 'symbolese' in 'Eeenglish-pleeeze'. ;-)

Now I see St Cathy coming upon the scene! She has retracted into her 'primordial essence', is established in 'her Father's Kingdom', and if that don't beat all, she's 'going about her father's business'.

C'mon, Cathy...

...with effortless ease I follow the Tao, I go about my father's business.
See, David: this is the sort of shit you feed into. This is the kind of bullshit you allow in those who offer their obeiscences to you. Although you didn't invent this shit, you certainly play in it. I call it bullshit, straight up!

"With effortless ease I follow the Tao, I go about my father's business"...I love it! [*Snickers!*]
____________________________________________________

I want to do "my father's business" in the Shaque d'Amour.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Cathy Preston » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:35 am

C'mon, Cathy...


O ye, of little faith

"With effortless ease I follow the Tao, I go about my father's business"...I love it! [*Snickers!*]


did you know Snickers! provides substantial satisfaction.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Jamesh » Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:16 pm

Cathy, will you consider taking my email course? Tell me about your lawn. Anything like this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QUEdhrHhwQ&feature=relmfu

============================================================

Ahh synchronicity strikes again. Searching for Cathy Preston led me to look in Amazon for Return to One, but the search results gave me Return To The One: Plotinus's Guide To God-Realization.

Which then led to this http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/universe/

"So much so, as cosmologist Lawrence Krauss describes in his new book, "A Universe from Nothing," nothing can reasonably be viewed as the creative principle which brought the universe into being -- a job most religions give to God"


I've finished reading Krauss' book. Now I better understand why this statement by Richard Dawkins in his afterword to "A Universe from Nothing" isn't as overblown as it will seem to many
Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If On the Origin of Species was biology's deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see A Universe from Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.


I watched Dawkins speak (not very well) about this same topic only a few days ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Cathy Preston » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:50 pm

In this discussion Death represents the end of self. One will find themselves in precisely the same physical body, in time, on Earth but without internal issues, any problems that do arise are easily resolved and there is no attempt to work it all out. You're correct in saying there is no magic solution, because there is no solution period. The hungry will always need to be fed, the sick will always need a cure, the greedy will always over-indulge, the living will always die, the only way out of this cycle is through the source. Giving up your worldly throne, releases you from the burden of mankind. To rightly see; rather than being an observer, one is the observer as well as the observed is to find his rightful place. Like a fish trying his whole life to live on shore, but dying over and over until it dawns on him that his place is in the Ocean. On this realization the problem surrounding living on shore don't disappear they remain the same and suppose the fish ignored his realization the problem would continue to exist and he would continue to die over and over.

I'm not asking you to accept anything, Translating the ineffable seems an impossible task but as the universe moves so does this.


and just to clear up any misunderstanding I have never written any book.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Talking Ass » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:25 am

In this discussion Death represents the end of self. One will find themselves in precisely the same physical body, in time, on Earth but without internal issues, any problems that do arise are easily resolved and there is no attempt to work it all out. You're correct in saying there is no magic solution, because there is no solution period. The hungry will always need to be fed, the sick will always need a cure, the greedy will always over-indulge, the living will always die, the only way out of this cycle is through the source. Giving up your worldly throne, releases you from the burden of mankind. To rightly see; rather than being an observer, one is the observer as well as the observed is to find his rightful place. Like a fish trying his whole life to live on shore, but dying over and over until it dawns on him that his place is in the Ocean. On this realization the problem surrounding living on shore don't disappear they remain the same and suppose the fish ignored his realization the problem would continue to exist and he would continue to die over and over.
I will call this Cathy's Dream. It is not much more than an idealistic projection. It is untested. It is likely not your own experience but a 'dream' or a wish for your own experience. There is never 'end of self'. I have been around spiritual types for almost all of my life and I have listened to all this RAP, and no matter what they say, no matter what they imagine or project, there is ever and always a 'self' there. And that self goes on struggling with existential issues just as before. What may change is the relationship to the problem.

I also suggest that these kinds of formulations, though perhaps they can be said to be 'beautiful' or at least 'interesting' and do also express a yearning and seeking, also have a destructive underbelly. It is a veiled escapism. There is too much mystery in them because the subject of them never appears (can never appear, since the 'self' is 'annihilated'---absurd). For example, you (Cathy) talking about your death-process, what happened, what you 'left behind', what you now do, what your relations are. It is far too easy to speak in open-ended abstractions. This sort of 'thinking' is encouraged and indulged in by the boy-geniuses and is, as should be recognized, a kind of indulgent masturbation.

...the only way out of this cycle is through the source. Giving up your worldly throne, releases you from the burden of mankind.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? I respect the thought insofar as it is your formulation, but what is the origin of it? What are the causes that put it in motion? It is not 'Buddhist' because of the Bodhisattva Vow (if that still stands), and it is not even Hindu, nor Christian or Jewish. True, you don't have to think in anyone else's terms, but one wishes to get behind it and see what is there. Frankly, to me, this is just a sort of vanity. Is this what you have 'done'?
____________________________________________________

C'est Pas La Mer A Boire.
Last edited by Talking Ass on Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Cathy Preston » Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:04 am

To further add: awareness doesn't change, consciousness doesn't change they are what they are. Change occurs because we see things in relationship. Things change in relation to time, things change in relation to space, things change in relation to me. Yet when we see rightly there is no relationship. There is only the great mystery, which has no relationship because no-thing nor nothing exists besides that. Just that.

Sorry Ass, I'm off to work, so no time to address your post.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby jupiviv » Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:28 am

Cathy Preston wrote:awareness doesn't change, consciousness doesn't change they are what they are.


If this were true you would be unable to make this very statement. If nothing whatsoever underwent change then it would be impossible for anyone to be aware that they do not undergo change. It is precisely because some things are perceived to change that other things can be called permanent, and right there is also the change in awareness of change to that of permanence.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

where's your sock-puppet now?

Postby Talking Ass » Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:19 am

To me, though I admit it is subjective, Cheb I Sabbah says it best HERE. It's ESPECIALLY clear right at 4:00-4:30.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Cathy Preston » Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:36 am

jupiviv wrote:
Cathy Preston wrote:awareness doesn't change, consciousness doesn't change they are what they are.


If this were true you would be unable to make this very statement. If nothing whatsoever underwent change then it would be impossible for anyone to be aware that they do not undergo change. It is precisely because some things are perceived to change that other things can be called permanent, and right there is also the change in awareness of change to that of permanence.



Yes its precisely because we automatically seperate things that we perceive anything at all. Experiencing the Great Mystery eliminates this seperation. Neither permmanent nor immpermanent just this, neither changing nor changeless just this. Neither coming nor going just this, neither originating nor ceasing just this. No some things nor other things just this.

Suppose I look at a tree, all kinds of definitions come to mind about the tree as I relate it to me. It appears unconscious, it appears unmoving, it appears large, it appears far away but when Subject and Object snap into one what can I say about what I mistook for a tree now.
Cathy Preston
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby David Quinn » Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:53 am

Talking Ass wrote: I will call this Cathy's Dream. It is not much more than an idealistic projection. It is untested.

Talking Ass wrote: What the fuck is this supposed to mean? True, you don't have to think in anyone else's terms, but one wishes to get behind it and see what is there.

I believe this is called the "shoot first and ask questions later" policy....

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Dennis Mahar » Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:34 am

"shoot first and ask questions later"


shoot the load.
if it's sexy it works for him.
check the penis condition for 'truth'.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 3855
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby Jamesh » Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:43 am

It appears unconscious, it appears unmoving, it appears large, it appears far away but when Subject and Object snap into one what can I say about what I mistook for a tree now.


Like TA, I never actually believe that really happens. I think it is delusion. Creating spiritualism where there is none!

The changing self remains the changing self at all times - all that changes is one's ego program(s) and its related value systems, which can certainly have profound affects. There is no "snapping into one", there is merely the attachment to that ideal. Such non-duality is evident in thought processes ONLY when thinking of philosophical issues, not truly at any other time, albeit that as one's value system has changed now that the self is more tightly cognitively linked to the whole which changes one's thinking.

I don't really believe in enlightenment, as in being one with all - such a concept does not suit my psyche. That sort of thing is for people who have a well developed God Module in their brains. http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html
I think David has this - and that is the true reason he at times refers to the totality as God, as this thing of utter beauty. Dennis and Being of One also have a history of being drawn to things that stimulate the God Module.

I just believe it is a good thing to expand one's knowledge of what is real and to let that knowledge gradually intergrate with one's memories (our thought data), which in turn alters those memories when next used in new thoughts by changing the values associated with the memory data (values determined by a Self-Other ego, instinctual and logical competition dynamic). For me knowing reality increases indifference (nihilism - as in a lack of significant positive or negative values) but for others it tickles their God Module into creating chemicals that create the emotion of "awe".

and just to clear up any misunderstanding I have never written any book.

Ok - nice coincidence though
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/CathyPreston
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby David Quinn » Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:47 am

Talking Ass wrote:To say I have a 'mental block', David, is to place a sort of pathology on me.

It is definitely a pathology. When a man goes to such lengths to create numerous stumbling blocks to prevent his knowing himself, there is something very wrong.

I believe the source of the pathology can be found in something you said to Cathy:

I will call this Cathy's Dream. It is not much more than an idealistic projection. It is untested. It is likely not your own experience but a 'dream' or a wish for your own experience. There is never 'end of self'. I have been around spiritual types for almost all of my life and I have listened to all this RAP, and no matter what they say, no matter what they imagine or project, there is ever and always a 'self' there. And that self goes on struggling with existential issues just as before.

All sorts of things leap out from this paragraph. There is the snarling tone, which suggests there is a lot of pain involved. The sentence, "I have been around spiritual types for almost all of my life and I have listened to all this RAP", suggests that this pain goes way back into early childhood, probably involving your Buddhist mother and her crowd. The superficial, fixed, iron-clad dismissal of the philosophy of "no-self" expresses a complete lack of understanding and empathy for Buddhist wisdom. All of these factors combined have contributed to the large mental block you have towards the Infinite.

I do empathize, Alex. If your mother and her crowd were anything like the Western Buddhist types that I constantly meet, then your reaction is entirely understandable. In my experience, such people are invariably psychologically damaged, alienated from their own Western culture, and looking for a quick fix within the Buddhist religion. Their understanding of wisdom is non-existent, their motivations are emotional and impure, and the results are nearly always disasterous. They give Buddhism a bad name.

It is a pity that you have had to bear the brunt of this at such a young age. I do feel for you. But unfortunately, it has led you to form a kind of pathological hatred of anything that seems to connected to Eastern thought and a mental block against wisdom.

Your need to constantly belittle anyone who expresses an affinity with Eastern thought, to slam down hard on any kind of thinking that leads in that direction; the way you have backtracked into Christian and Jewish culture so as to be as far away from the East as possible, even to the point of ignoring the wisdom of Jesus and turning him into a kind of mundane Anglican Jew - all of this is an expression of your pathology towards the Infinite.

And it explains why you are constantly on here on the forum, and have been for year after year, despite your lack of affinity for what this forum is about - the pain, the childhood trauma involving your mother and her crowd, remains unresolved. It continues to eat away at you. Your constant hostility and belittling of us is your way of dealing with the pain. Part revenge, part therapy.


I have read you for some years now and you make vague references to 'value' but your language can't reach it, or what you value is [apparently] substanceless.

I believe I've made myself very clear that I value God-consciousness. It means the world to me.


'God' (your own and very peculiar term, as defined by you, which you should really reject for the confusion it causes),

On the contrary, my use of the word "God" is very clear, unambiguous and right on the mark. It is the Christian conception of God - shaped, as it is, by egotistical desire, steeped in fantasy and riddled with contradictions - which creates the confusion. Just how Christians like it, in fact.

Funnily enough, Jesus happens to share my "peculiar" concept of God:

"It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, & I am there. Lift up the stone, & you will find me there." - Thomas: 77


"When you make the two one, & when you make the inside like the outside & the outside like the inside, & the above like the below, & when you make the male & the female one & the same, so that the male be not male nor the female female; & when you fashion eyes in place of an eye & a hand in place of a hand, & a foot in place of a foot, & a likeness in place of a likeness; then you will enter the Kingdom." - Thomas: 22


"The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, "Here it is," or "There it is," because the kingdom of God is in your midst." - Luke 17: 20


His disciples said to him, "When will the Kingdom come?"

Jesus said, "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying, 'Here it is', or 'There it is'. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it." - Thomas: 113

And a particular nod to you, dear Alex:

"Whoever believes that the All itself is deficient is himself completely deficient." - Thomas: 67

Ha! Even Jesus thinks you have a pathology!

Anyhoo, continuing on....

Talking Ass wrote: If I say, as I do, that I oppose your tendentious project you will say that I reject then 'God', or the ineffable, or 'eternity'.

If a person rejects the direct path to God, it is the same as rejecting God.

It is like a man saying to his distant beloved, "I love you with all my heart, my darling, but I have no desire to come over and see you. Maybe one day.” It is as absurd as it is insincere.

    "I must attain perfection in this life, yea, in three days I must find God, nay, with a single utterance of his name I will draw him to me". With such a violent love the Lord is attracted soon. The lukewarm lovers take ages to go to Him, if at all. - Ramakrishna

The situation is obvious, Alex. Because of your unresolved pain you are too scared to approach God directly, thus you hide away in cultural and religious theorizing. Instead of babbling on and on all the time like a clown, why not fall silent and humbly admit that you have this fear? It would make a good first step towards the beginnings of a relationship with God.

    It is eternally true that if one knocks, the door will be opened. But suppose that the difficulty for us human beings is simply that we are afraid to go - and knock. - Kierkegaard

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Osho - Comparing Buddha And Jesus

Postby David Quinn » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:07 pm

Jamesh wrote:I don't really believe in enlightenment, as in being one with all - such a concept does not suit my psyche. That sort of thing is for people who have a well developed God Module in their brains. http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html
I think David has this - and that is the true reason he at times refers to the totality as God, as this thing of utter beauty

In regards to the God Module, they are talking about altered states here. The researchers, being ignorant, are making the common mistake of equating enlightenment with these altered states. They aren't aware that enlightenment is on another level altogether and has nothing to do with altered states, or in fact with any kind of state at all.

Like Richard Dawkins, the researchers are naive and extremely one-dimensional in their approach to spiritual matters.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests