LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by maestro » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:49 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:Yes, provided he meant "personal god" in the physical and literal sense. For example, worshiping a statue and believing that the statue, and the statue alone, was truly God, would be complete madness, and if he was teaching that kind of thing then he was indeed compromising the truth.

Of course the statue is not the God, the statue is just an image of the god.
Kevin Solway wrote:Bhakti essentially means loving devotion (to God), but it certainly does not require that one has a single, personal representation of God. It just requires that you are lovingly devoted to Truth - to God.
In the words of Ramakrishna, "Knowledge and love of God are ultimately one and the same. There is no difference between pure knowledge and pure love." (from "Venom Crystals")

Bhakti and Jnana are the same in their eventual fulfillment, but they start from different roads. Essentially in bhakti you start with a personal god, and then trust your god so much as to leave all egoistic pursuits and thinking behind, i.e. become a like a helpless child with the all wise mother to take care of you. This will kill the ego eventually and you will be enlightened.

There is some danger in this path, as compared with the path of Jnana, if you fail in Jnana at least you get to become a philosopher, which is somewhat respectable. If your ego fails to die in this path, you risk having a very nutty world view.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2709
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:06 pm

maestro wrote:Of course the statue is not the God, the statue is just an image of the god.

Since literally all things are images of God, if a person thinks that only one item is an image of God, then they are very badly mistaken.

Kevin Solway wrote:In the words of Ramakrishna, "Knowledge and love of God are ultimately one and the same. There is no difference between pure knowledge and pure love." (from "Venom Crystals")

Bhakti and Jnana are the same in their eventual fulfillment, but they start from different roads. Essentially in bhakti you start with a personal god, and then trust your god so much as to leave all egoistic pursuits and thinking behind, i.e. become a like a helpless child with the all wise mother to take care of you. This will kill the ego eventually and you will be enlightened.

No, Ramakrishna was right: knowledge and love of God are indivisible - like two sides of the one coin.

This is easily demonstrated in the following way: If you started with love of what you thought was God but had no idea what the real God is, then you would have nothing.

So you see that an accurate knowledge of what God is, at least, is required.

If one didn't know that literally everything is God, and what that meant about God, then one would never be able to even begin to love God. That is the situation today's religions find themselves in. If they have any devotion at all, they have no knowledge to make it meaningful. They don't have enough knowledge to know that they are devoted to a false God (which, by definition, is the devil).

User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by maestro » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:20 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:This is easily demonstrated in the following way: If you started with love of what you thought was God but had no idea what the real God is, then you would have nothing.

So you see that an accurate knowledge of what God is, at least, is required.

You speak from the perspective of the Jnani. However (the supposed postulate is that) if you start with a muddle headed perspective of God, like say the all powerful father in heaven, and surrender all your personal striving and ego to him, by accepting that since he is so powerful and intelligent, let him guide as he likes and you accept pain and pleasure without flinching. Then if your ego dies, you will find yourself on the same ground as the Jnani who got there by a relentless study of his own mind.

However as I said that this path is not for everyone. And in fact the paths converge only at the very end, therefore a guy 80% gone on the path of bhakti, with the ego intact, would seem crazy to you as compared with the guy 50% on the path of Jnana, who would have discovered some useful facts about his mind and the world at least.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2709
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:38 pm

maestro wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:This is easily demonstrated in the following way: If you started with love of what you thought was God but had no idea what the real God is, then you would have nothing.

So you see that an accurate knowledge of what God is, at least, is required.

You speak from the perspective of the Jnani.

Only in the sense that I speak from the perspective of someone who knows what is true.

However (the supposed postulate is that) if you start with a muddle headed perspective of God, like say the all powerful father in heaven, and surrender all your personal striving and ego to him

Surrender everything to a muddled head? Yep, that's religion for you. Marriage too.

Let's say you have a "henid" of what God is - that is, an unclarified, muddy, muddled, vague idea. This henid can either be on the right track, or it can be totally on the wrong track. Nine times out of ten, at least, it will be on the wrong track. But this henid, on the slim chance that it is correct, is the beginnings of knowledge, or jnana.

So right at this point we have a combination of love and knowledge - although in very rudimentary form.

But true love of God can never, not even for a moment, grow in advance of true knowledge of God.

If one only has henid-knowledge of God, then one only has henid-love of God. The rest is all bluster and energy.

The same thing can happen when a person has a vast knowledge, but only a little love of God. This means that only a little of that person's knowledge is correct. The rest is wasted energy.

User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by maestro » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:48 am

Kevin Solway wrote:Surrender everything to a muddled head? Yep, that's religion for you. Marriage too.

Let's say you have a "henid" of what God is - that is, an unclarified, muddy, muddled, vague idea. This henid can either be on the right track, or it can be totally on the wrong track. Nine times out of ten, at least, it will be on the wrong track. But this henid, on the slim chance that it is correct, is the beginnings of knowledge, or jnana.

So right at this point we have a combination of love and knowledge - although in very rudimentary form.

But true love of God can never, not even for a moment, grow in advance of true knowledge of God.

If one only has henid-knowledge of God, then one only has henid-love of God. The rest is all bluster and energy.

Yes but the idea is that even if one surrenders the ego completely to the imaginary god. then eventually he will be free of the ego and free of the ego distortion will see the world clearly, thus knowing true knowledge.

Something like this happened with Mr R.K. too, as he was a simple illiterate priest. Forget philosophy he did not even know how to sign his name. But his 100% surrender to the imaginary Kali led him to discover the truth of the universe.

User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by divine focus » Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:00 am

Like I said in the thread about emotions, different people have different primary modes of knowing. There's thought-focused people and emotional-focused people, but there's also people who have a familial-focus. The familial-focus is very soulful and understands the Creator on a sensed basis. Therefore, it may not be as accurate as a thought-focused person would like or as fun and creative as an emotional-focus would understand. The understanding of the familial-focus is just as valid as the others and just as useful as an intellectually-arrived understanding is in a thought-focus.

Now, the familial-focus would be those most attracted to or most suited to a deep, religious experience of the Universal One. It will be seen as a personal Creator because that is the familial-focus. The familial aspect is the most personal and identity-related element of an individual. The Truth of a familial-focus would have to be seen in that way. They wouldn't even see it as Truth until they tried to translate it into thought, Truth simply being the understanding through thought.

..........

The trinity of Chrisianity can be very valuable and effective for a thought-focus, I've come to understand. It actually isn't so much of a familial understanding as an intellectual and potentially an emotional one. I can now see what David and Kevin mean when they speak of cause and effect; to call it a causality, though, is not as accurate because it is more an effectuality. They are speaking of the Father, which is the unknown Source. The Source, in their view, represents all causes and effects previous to this moment which determine the natural course of action or direction now. The line of cause and effect is unknown since it is appears to be infinitely complex and potentially stretches infinitely back in time. It provides an infinite past and an infinite future, as long as the direction is held to.

What they haven't yet understood is the role of the Holy Spirit, which is the feminine aspect of the trinity. The Holy Spirit is actually invisible to thought; it doesn't actually exist as the Father seems to exist outside of you, the Son. That would make sense since the feminine is the inward function. The effects can be seen, though, and easily identified: a lighthearted approach and an appreciative frame of mind. This is most easily seen at the beginning stages of growth, but it eventually falls away because it doesn't solve any immediate problems. The attention turns to what's missing, the direction of the Father Source, which provides a confidence and stability. Once that direction is identified and realized, though, the Son must come back to the Compassionate Spirit and reintegrate it into its newfound understanding.
eliasforum.org/digests.html

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2709
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Kevin Solway » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:23 am

maestro wrote:Yes but the idea is that even if one surrenders the ego completely to the imaginary god. then eventually he will be free of the ego and free of the ego distortion will see the world clearly, thus knowing true knowledge.

That simply doesn't happen. "An imaginary God" is in fact the devil, and if you surrender yourself to the devil you don't get anywhere good. That's a guarantee.

You might burn off some karma, but you'll create a lot more new karma.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2709
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Kevin Solway » Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:30 am

divine focus wrote:Like I said in the thread about emotions, different people have different primary modes of knowing. There's thought-focused people and emotional-focused people, but there's also people who have a familial-focus.

"Knowing" what? You can't be talking about knowing truth, as this kind of knowing can only be done with thoughts. It requires real consciousness. That's why Ramakrishna says that wisdom is not possible without intellectual knowledge of God.

The Holy Spirit is actually invisible to thought

If this were true then you wouldn't be able to know that it is invisible, and you wouldn't be able to say what you just did.

User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by maestro » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:19 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:That simply doesn't happen. "An imaginary God" is in fact the devil, and if you surrender yourself to the devil you don't get anywhere good. That's a guarantee.

That did happen to Ramakrishna didn't it. In fact his imaginary Goddess indeed looks like the devil (see this picture if you do not believe me).

And as I said before that the supposed chain of causation is

Surrender to the "devil"----->Ego death-----> Clear Vision.

I myself have a hard time believing it. It is one of the reasons I doubt Ramakrishna's enlightenment as I said before.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2709
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Kevin Solway » Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:18 pm

maestro wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:That simply doesn't happen. "An imaginary God" is in fact the devil, and if you surrender yourself to the devil you don't get anywhere good. That's a guarantee.

That did happen to Ramakrishna didn't it.

Not the way I see it. Ramakrishna's goddess is only a representation of God, and serves to remind him of God (the God of which he has both intellectual and experiential knowledge). And if that's the case, then it's not a problem.

It might be that a particular tree serves to remind you of God more than other things do, and so you worship that particular tree as a manifestation of God. That kind of behaviour can be quite helpful, provided that it doesn't get out of hand.

User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by divine focus » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:39 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
divine focus wrote:Like I said in the thread about emotions, different people have different primary modes of knowing. There's thought-focused people and emotional-focused people, but there's also people who have a familial-focus.

"Knowing" what? You can't be talking about knowing truth, as this kind of knowing can only be done with thoughts. It requires real consciousness. That's why Ramakrishna says that wisdom is not possible without intellectual knowledge of God.

Not true. It would be a very different kind of understanding, but the other modes would see the same thing from a different point of view; a different language, so to speak. This is probably why it's so hard to get through to Neil.

The Holy Spirit is actually invisible to thought

If this were true then you wouldn't be able to know that it is invisible, and you wouldn't be able to say what you just did.

lol

It's the same as talking about gravity or magnetics or dark matter. We can't see them but we can see the effects.
eliasforum.org/digests.html

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2709
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Kevin Solway » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:55 pm

divine focus wrote:It would be a very different kind of understanding

There's only one kind of knowing, or understanding, and that is the conscious variety. Anything less than this and we are at most talking about henids, or the type of consciousness that animals have.


The Holy Spirit is actually invisible to thought

If this were true then you wouldn't be able to know that it is invisible, and you wouldn't be able to say what you just did.

lol

It's the same as talking about gravity or magnetics or dark matter. We can't see them but we can see the effects.

The point is that whatever you know about God, provided what you know is true, is indeed knowledge.

If we know a thing is "invisible" then we know about it in exactly the same way that we know about all other things - through their effects.

In truth, the Holy Spirit is not invisible. It is literally all around you. It's only invisible to those who can't see it.

Greg Shantz
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 8:20 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Greg Shantz » Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:58 am

I found a quote from Chuang Tzu which is relevant to this discussion:

"To follow the infinite by means of the finite is perilous."

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Dan Rowden » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:08 pm

Doesn't this discussion relate to the differences in Hinayana and Mahayana in Buddhism? I have to say I've yet to experience any sense of potential in Hinayana practice. People get so caught up in ritual and practice and method that they literally forget the purpose of such things.

User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by divine focus » Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:13 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
divine focus wrote:It would be a very different kind of understanding

There's only one kind of knowing, or understanding, and that is the conscious variety

Yes, but the perception of what is understood is different for different people. The knowing is the same, but beliefs color everyone's perception. Their perceptual-focus does as well, and it is not a belief.

The point is that whatever you know about God, provided what you know is true, is indeed knowledge.

If we know a thing is "invisible" then we know about it in exactly the same way that we know about all other things - through their effects.

In truth, the Holy Spirit is not invisible. It is literally all around you. It's only invisible to those who can't see it.

What you're speaking of is the Father aspect. The Holy Spirit doesn't provide knowledge, per se, although it does create an ease, a clarity. It is invisible in the sense that it is obviously you simply being less serious and more accepting. The Father isn't so cleary identified as you, so a separate concept can be formed: what people normally think of when they think "God."
eliasforum.org/digests.html

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2709
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Kevin Solway » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:38 pm

divine focus wrote:Yes, but the perception of what is understood is different for different people.

"Perception of what is understood" doesn't actually mean anything.

Wise people are not interested in the finger that is pointing at the moon, or whether it is a finger or a pointing arrow - they are only interested in the moon itself. All wise people agree on that one object.

The knowing is the same, but beliefs color everyone's perception.

As I say, "perception" is of no interest to wise people - only understanding.

In truth, the Holy Spirit is not invisible. It is literally all around you. It's only invisible to those who can't see it.

What you're speaking of is the Father aspect.

The Father is the All, the Son is the individual human, and the spirit is things inbetween the two.

User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by divine focus » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:41 pm

"Perception of what is understood" doesn't actually mean anything.

Wise people are not interested in the finger that is pointing at the moon, or whether it is a finger or a pointing arrow - they are only interested in the moon itself. All wise people agree on that one object.

The moon, in this case, contains the pointing finger. It's not finger or the moon; it's the moon, and there's the finger as well. Say thanks to the finger; it hasn't gone anywhere.
eliasforum.org/digests.html

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3761
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:07 am

Kevin Solway wrote:But we are not designers of evolution, so that would indicate that he doesn't believe in intelligent design. ???


How do you figure that we are not designers of evolution? The most obvious way in which us humans designed evolution was dog breeding. Hitler took a big hand in designing evolution. As for our personal choices... "sexual selection"... it could be debated that we do not always use intelligence in evolution - but if we were wiser, we would. Of course, depending on how you want to define intelligence, it could still be argued that sexual selection is a product of intelligence (over randomness anyway). We are definitely designing evolution of food crops and garden plants - and pollination crosses over into wild varieties of plants. Various insecticides and herbicides influence evolution - but not all of that is a conscious process of intelligent design becasue most humans don't look at all the consequences. The endangered species list - well, you're getting the point, I'm sure.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3761
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:12 am

Ataraxia wrote:Furthermore it's contrary to what Buddha has to say to Kutadanta.

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... adanta.htm
Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream
that their souls are separate and self-existent entities.


Just because Buddha said it doesn't make it so. We are here to think for ourselves.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3761
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:31 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
That primates forms resembled human beings is no proof that they changed one day into human beings.

The fact that we share about 99% of our genetic make-up with chimpanzees should give you a good indication that we are very closely related.


As well as very closely related to fish.

I don't see how this contradicts the Christian view that we are all children of God. The fish and the apes are our brothers, too.

User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Faust » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:16 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
That primates forms resembled human beings is no proof that they changed one day into human beings.

The fact that we share about 99% of our genetic make-up with chimpanzees should give you a good indication that we are very closely related.


As well as very closely related to fish.

I don't see how this contradicts the Christian view that we are all children of God. The fish and the apes are our brothers, too.

what a bunch of rubbish!!!

humans and apes don't share 99% of genes, what a stupid, lying, and misinformed idea.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5278/

Recently, they've found differences between humans as much a 12%, how can that be if humans are so similar? They should be 99.99999% similar according to evolution
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/ ... N=72040704

this "fish foot" idea is another silly and pathetic attempt, just like the myth of vestigial organs
http://darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html

it's akin to when they said fetuses had gills in their embryos...
Amor fati

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Nick » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:09 am

Faust13 wrote:it's akin to when they said fetuses had gills in their embryos...


So are you saying I'm wasting my time going fishing in women's vaginas?

User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Faust » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:33 am

Nick Treklis wrote:
Faust13 wrote:it's akin to when they said fetuses had gills in their embryos...


So are you saying I'm wasting my time going fishing in women's vaginas?

yes,

but seriously, most evolutionists are too chicken shit to admit how wrong and unproven their theory really is. Surprisingly there's still some serious ones that do admit to its gaping holes and lack of coherent and empirical sense. You should read http://www.darwinismrefuted.com if you aren't chicken shit
Amor fati

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Dan Rowden » Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:12 am

Harun Yahya? You gotta be fucking kidding me.

User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Post by Faust » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:04 pm

Yeah even them actually use science, logic, and empirical evidence. How about actually reading it instead of mentally blocking it? Do you think I'm religious Dan?

http://darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html

Australopithecus skulls and skeletons closely resemble those of modern apes. The drawing to the side shows a chimpanzee on the left, and an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton on the right. Adrienne L. Zhilman, the professor of anatomy who did the drawing, stresses that the structures of the two skeletons are very similar. (above)

An Australopithecus robustus skull. It bears a close resemblance to that of modern apes. (above)


This claim that australopithecines walked upright is a view that has been held by paleoanthropologists such as Richard Leakey and Donald C. Johanson for decades. Yet many scientists who have carried out a great deal of research on the skeletal structures of australopithecines have proved the invalidity of that argument. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself.186 Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern orangutans.187


it's obvious your mental blocks involve trying to find a creationist or religious prejudice instead of looking at how much more scientific they are in the matter
Amor fati

Post Reply