An old-fashioned viewpoint

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Yes. Well put, unwise.

More accuratly: well re-put, unwise.

I saw the first way that you phrased that, and wondered if you'd totally gone off the deep end.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As long as there is a healthy level of CHAOS, one does not have to worry much about tradition and society. Women seek security, but a good man will thrive and grow in CHAOS.

It provides much latitude for manly adventures. Chaos is an enemy to all religion, dogma, gurus, and to all womanly institutions. In a fine chaotic state, a man may find himself without any support and is free to form his own reality.

Only in such a state of affairs can a man abandon all teaching and turn to himself alone.

No, it's not well put at all.

Lets analyse it a bit further and perhaps you'll see it's actually quite conflicted.

If we define chaos as the undefined, the unformed, then chaos is a property of the unconscious, since one needs consciousness to have definitions and forms.

Religion, dogma, gurus, and institutions are not feminine but only remains or a degenerated n-th generation copy of originally masculine undertakings.

The active principle is creation, life as we know it develops in its slipstream and all feminine philosophy and experiencing is like ship wreckage trailing far behind. Dead wood.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If we define chaos as the undefined

"Chaos" more closely means "disorderly."

unwise wrote

It provides much latitude for manly adventures.

"Manly" is a bit different from the masculinity that is revered here. "Manly" is stupid stuff like the beer funnel, lighting your own farts, and other activities that are generally agreed to be quite unfeminine. I didn't say it was a good idea, I just agreed that it was a statement well put.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

unwise also wrote

Only in such a state of affairs can a man abandon all teaching and turn to himself alone.

Obviously, in such a state, a man is not under the jurisdiction of any teachings. He is left to re-invent the wheel, and re-invent Socrates. Learning from others can be a good thing, and the concious can sort out which teachings are good and which are erroneous.

[unwise]

Actually, a man is more apt to find enlightenment with no books at all and no teachers. This is not only my own belief, but it was taught by Ramana Maharshi. You do not need a single instruction or concept to suddenly find yourself in your fundamental condition.

Teaching of any kind actually gets in the way.

Also, it is interesting that Jesus said that whores, winos and gluttons would 'see the kingdom of heaven' before the pious, self-righteous and 'wise' individuals who spent all of their time studying philosophy and scripture. Why do you think that is?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If we define chaos as the undefined

"Chaos" more closely means "disorderly."

Orderly means 'systematic' or 'arranged'. Is it such a stretch to say that proper definitions and clear observations are also a form of structure? Don't you see a relation between proper definition (outlining, clarifying, distinction) and right structure (arrangement, formation, construction) in thought as well as act?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Also, it is interesting that Jesus said that whores, winos and gluttons would 'see the kingdom of heaven' before the pious, self-righteous and 'wise' individuals who spent all of their time studying philosophy and scripture. Why do you think that is?

Apart from your servery mixing up of those old texts...

The true whore is the unsatisfied lover of Sophia, the real drunk is high on knowledge and the real glutton stuffs himself with wisdom until he bursts.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Buddah also taught that one could only reach enlightenment on one's own, and (sort of) like Odin found it from deciding to remain under a tree until enlightenment came to him. Buddah did not need chaos to seek wisdom without books or teachers. He found it in the peace of nature.

Also, it is interesting that Jesus said that whores, winos and gluttons would 'see the kingdom of heaven' before the pious, self-righteous and 'wise' individuals who spent all of their time studying philosophy and scripture. Why do you think that is?

Because the kingdom of heaven is reality. It is what is. It is only as much supposition as supposition itself is as a state (and much teaching is only supposition). Seeing the kingdom of heaven first is not the goal, but seeking first the Kingdom is. In seeking first, one finds it best. It's kind of like reading the directions. Simple stuff might be able to be used without the directions, and some of the better features might be figured out, too - but the Kingdom of Heaven has both simple and highly complex attributes, and some of the complex attributes are really cool.

I still say there are increments. Pious, self-righteous, and individuals who only think they are wise may never find the Kingdom. Whores, winos, and gluttons may find their way into the Kingdom, but maybe not the courtyard, certainly not the Palace, and never even glimpse into the throne room without making themselves fit to see The King.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Orderly means 'systematic' or 'arranged'. Is it such a stretch to say that proper definitions and clear observations are also a form of structure? Don't you see a relation between proper definition (outlining, clarifying, distinction) and right structure (arrangement, formation, construction) in thought as well as act?

I think you're arguing from my side now.

[unwise]

Whores, winos, and gluttons may find their way into the Kingdom, but maybe not the courtyard, certainly not the Palace, and never even glimpse into the throne room without making themselves fit to see The King

Well, that's not what Jesus said. He didn't put all those stipulations on it. And it isn't my own experience. The people who truly know know that ANY individual at any time, despite any bad habits, can become enlightened. Like I say, underneath this conception of yourself is the already enlightened being.

...Bliss is not something to be got.
On the other hand you are always Bliss.
This desire [for Bliss] is born of the sense of incompleteness.
To whom is this sense of incompleteness?
Enquire. In deep sleep you were blissful.
Now you are not so.
What has interposed between that Bliss and this non-bliss?
It is the ego.
Seek its source and find you are Bliss.

--Sri Ramana Maharshi

[Steven Coyle]

Yes. Well put, unwise.

More accuratly: well re-put, unwise.

I saw the first way that you phrased that, and wondered if you'd totally gone off the deep end.

Did you now?

Quite sane, quite sane.

[Steven Coyle]

The active principle is creation, life as we know it develops in its slipstream and all feminine philosophy and experiencing is like ship wreckage trailing far behind. Dead wood.

My experience of Chaos has always been creative - and conscious.

View it as a way to uncover new truth (even mystical truth! ah!)

The Tao doesn't always present itself logically...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think you're arguing from my side now.

I tried to argue how 'undefined' was the better definition upon close investigation because it shows how chaos is not something to 'thrive in' or experienced in consciousness. That would be only a product of fantasy. Creative indeed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whores, winos, and gluttons may find their way into the Kingdom, but maybe not the courtyard, certainly not the Palace, and never even glimpse into the throne room without making themselves fit to see The King

Well, that's not what Jesus said. He didn't put all those stipulations on it.

Unwise, you're the one who misquoted Jesus big time in the first place. He was called a wino by others and was also accused of visiting "whores and tax collectors", which meant basically all people who were dealing with Roman or Hellenist culture and outside fundamentalist tradition. However, some of his most loyal and intimate supporters were, according to the story, quite high up in the establishment (Nicodemus, a Jewish counsil member, and Joseph of Arimethea, not to mention Paul a Roman civilian with Jewish fundamentalist education).

But don't let me stop you from indulging in your fantasies.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The Tao doesn't always present itself logically...

Is there an illogical way of presenting possible? Like A=B?

[Steven Coyle]

The Tao doesn't always present itself logically...

Is there an illogical way of presenting possible? Like A=B?

A=A still applies.

The point I was trying to get across is that the Tao is in everything.

To limit it, is a great mistake.

Even criticism of the Tao, is Tao.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Well, that's not what Jesus said. He didn't put all those stipulations on it. And it isn't my own experience. The people who truly know know that ANY individual at any time, despite any bad habits, can become enlightened. Like I say, underneath this conception of yourself is the already enlightened being.

I did not claim to be quoting Jesus, I only stated the truth as I see it. And I did not say that people with bad habits can not become enlightened - I essentially said the fewer the actions that are not in accordance with Ultimate Rationality, the more enlightenment that is achievable.

[unwise]

Mat 21:28
¶
But what think ye? A [certain] man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.



Mat 21:29
He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.



Mat 21:30
And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I [go], sir: and went not.



Mat 21:31
Whether of them twain did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

This is just the intent that I paraphrased. The great students of 'the law' set out to become enlightened. They study and practice and become quite proud of themselves. Enlightenment is far from them in their great 'wisdom.' Meanwhile, the whores who say "fuck that shit" go on living life in a more honest, straightforward way. They are MUCH more susceptible to inner satori as they are not trying so hard to be someone and fool themselves. Often, their ego is not very well developed. This is a plus. To them "the Kingdom of Heaven arrives like a thief in the night."

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Not you Steven.

***********
significantly edited for content because Steven was right - it was rude of me to post what had been edited out.

David, Kevin, or Dan, if you feel that my edit does something bad to the continuity of the thread, please notify me and I will replace the original post. I have saved the original in case you request that I replace it, but I will delete the file by the end of the month if I do not hear that you want it replaced.

Thank you.

[unwise]

Did I change my post about me and Satan laughing at you? Not to my knowledge. I'll have to go look. I didn't change anything.

[Steven Coyle]

Don't be Judas.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The great students of 'the law' set out to become enlightened. They study and practice and become quite proud of themselves. Enlightenment is far from them in their great 'wisdom.' Meanwhile, the whores who say "fuck that shit" go on living life in a more honest, straightforward way.

Thanks unwise for explaining it more.

Yes, hypocricy seems to be the greatest sin, or barrier to wisdom. A whore, while being stuck in her karma perhaps, at least acts out what she is, the soul of the seeker which cannot be else than being an idolatress when it comes to truth. So it becomes easier for her to see the truth of her state.

Don't forget to read the further texts though: "but the publicans and the harlots believed him [John]" so we're not talking about people stuck in their 'straightforward' (slavish) ways, they did convert first, because it was easier for them to understand what was made obscure by the word artists.

[unwise]

People who are being honest with themselves do not put on aires and feel compelled to do what they do. That is very natural since we are all creatures of cause and effect and do not control destiny. So, an honest person with many faults will more likely recognize truth when it appears to them in one of its many forms. They will appreciate it and cling to it, yet they may continue with all of their bad habits. This is fine. They have been drawn closer in. They are ahead of the game.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So, an honest person with many faults will more likely recognize truth when it appears to them in one of its many forms. They will appreciate it and cling to it, yet they may continue with all of their bad habits. This is fine. They have been drawn closer in. They are ahead of the game.

Unwise, you seem to put a lot of importance on the possibility of the continuation of 'bad habits'. Any personal reason for that fixation? While it's true that we cannot control much of our fate, being ahead of the game does have consequences in our lives; one cannot touch living truth without being consumed by it. The texts you quoted from are all about "repent" and changing of ways, starting from the heart and emanating from there through every nook and corner of our being and doing.

[unwise]

Sure, repent if it makes you feel better. You can live a very saintly life if you'd like. The same underlying subconscious will still be there, however. And, despite all of your sublime righteousness, you will still find a major problem if you are perceptive.

I emphasize living with 'bad habits' for many reasons. For one thing, many things considered 'bad' are not bad. They are neutral. We are here to have fun you know.

Secondly, your drives, preferences, likes and dislikes are emanating from below your conscious control. It is better to accept oneself as is than to fight an unpopular urge such as homosexuality.

Thirdly, I am always fighting against the 'will' of the ego in all of its smelly forms. The ego is stoked up when it assumes it can do all things - including lead one into enlightenment and wisdom. It can't. It is constantly seeing oneself as a body and the consciousness inside your gourd. That's not where it is. And you are not in a body and you are not your ego. So who cares what your body wants to do?