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?Liberty Sea wrote: Alex, allow me to call you Alex, as others do. Are you interested in Truth and truths?
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.
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.Cathy wrote: "It seems that the purpose of his father's business was and is, like Buddhism, the freeing of more souls."
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'.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'.
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'.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."
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 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].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."
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...As for your other invitation I'll get back to ya.
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).
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'. ;-)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.
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.
"With effortless ease I follow the Tao, I go about my father's business"...I love it! [*Snickers!*]
Cathy, will you consider taking my email course? Tell me about your lawn. Anything like this?
"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 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.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.
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'?...the only way out of this cycle is through the source. Giving up your worldly throne, releases you from the burden of mankind.
Cathy Preston wrote:awareness doesn't change, consciousness doesn't change they are what they are.
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.
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.
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.
Talking Ass wrote:To say I have a 'mental block', David, is to place a sort of pathology on me.
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.
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.
'God' (your own and very peculiar term, as defined by you, which you should really reject for the confusion it causes),
"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
"Whoever believes that the All itself is deficient is himself completely deficient." - Thomas: 67
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'.
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
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Greettanype and 1 guest