Forgiveness & Redemption

[Cory Duchesne]

Forgiveness goes something like, "ah yes, you are wretched, but that's ok."

Redemption on the other hand hears your cry, and says:

"It's your move to put your life into creative motion, to make your sin the root of a virtue that prior to the error, had not been obtained. Go now, this world does not need you. Return to hell, and return from hell with jewels worthy of heaven."

The passive want forgiveness (sameness, outer-belonging, homosexuality). The valiant push for redemption (inner-quest, synthesis of new with old, copulation).

If the damage is significant enough for a spiritual response, then forgiveness is utterly beside the point, and is actually corrosive to spiritual progress.

Every soul bears witness and must respond accordingly. If an act is less than innocent and noble, or even sinister, then the sinner must be inspired to redeem himself.

If he applies himself on his quest, he will produce fruit that cancels the prior damage. Then one would say "I no longer have a reason to forgive, for this novel virtue of yours could not have arisen without your sin".

The religious sphere is about the destruction and creation of a new world. It goes beyond the ethical sphere.

[Dennis Mahar]

surely, for forgiveness and redemption to exist,
there has to be in the background an assumption or conviction that wrongness or rightness exist.

for wrongness and rightness to exist there has to be an assumption or conviction that Universe 'holds' intrinsic meaning.

[Cathy Preston]

surely, for forgiveness and redemption to exist,
there has to be in the background an assumption or conviction that wrongness or rightness exist.

for wrongness and rightness to exist there has to be an assumption or conviction that Universe 'holds' intrinsic meaning.

Wrongness and rightness arises with the assumption that self (not universe) holds intrinsic meaning.
@

[Beingof1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=gXDMoiEkyuQ&vq=medium

It does not matter what others think in their judging of what is and is not acceptable. That is a game.

To be 'real with it' means you suspend all because it is all that is being experienced. If forgiveness is needed it means judgment is separating us from reality and experience. Forgiveness is a necessary step if one has not yet experienced redemption.

There are those that judge me for some research I do because they spindle it to their own resentment because of internal guilt. Others will secretly hope you fail because they do not yet understand they are connected to your success or failure. I do research in the genome and in the reproductive dynamic of self image as a mechanism in the DNA. Others just simply tag me as a nut job or worse a pervert. These judgments are the result of resentment of existence itself.

"Whatsoever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven. Whatsoever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven" - Jesus
Any judgment is based in unforgiveness no matter what it is.

Redemption means the allowing of the experience, realizing it is all - illumination is about sanity. Realizing we cannot hope but to experience life with success. There is no escape from successfully experiencing life. We forgive until there is nothing left to forgive - that is redemption.

[Dennis Mahar]

Cathy,

Wrongness and rightness arises with the assumption that self (not universe) holds intrinsic meaning.

neither self nor Universe hold intrinsic meaning,
both are caused and have the nature of appearance because all phenomena that depends for existence is ultimately like 'moons in water'.

When David says there's nothing there ultimately, it's a matter of tuning in.

it's for consciousness to tune in or tune out.
consciousness has the possibility of intelligibility or 'picking up' phenomena and then becoming intelligent concerning phenomena,
or enlightened about the situation.

the working definition of intelligence is,
spotting difference and spotting sameness.

that's why there's 2 truths as a distinction.

being savvy or canny about that.

living in the difference is living in the division,
where there is division, there is conflict, there is suffering,
living in the sameness is living in the recognition 'all is one',
afflictive emotions resolved.

forgiveness and redemption 'belong' in the domain of phenomena experiencing separation.

whatever is in the domain of the experience of separation,
well,
it's all the same really.

it's not a bad idea to have a foot in both camps for the time being.

[Cathy Preston]

Cathy,

Wrongness and rightness arises with the assumption that self (not universe) holds intrinsic meaning.

neither self nor Universe hold intrinsic meaning,
both are caused and have the nature of appearance because all phenomena that depends for existence is ultimately like 'moons in water'.

When David says there's nothing there ultimately, it's a matter of tuning in.

it's for consciousness to tune in or tune out.
consciousness has the possibility of intelligibility or 'picking up' phenomena and then becoming intelligent concerning phenomena,
or enlightened about the situation.

the working definition of intelligence is,
spotting difference and spotting sameness.

that's why there's 2 truths as a distinction.

being savvy or canny about that.

living in the difference is living in the division,
where there is division, there is conflict, there is suffering,
living in the sameness is living in the recognition 'all is one',
afflictive emotions resolved.

forgiveness and redemption 'belong' in the domain of phenomena experiencing separation.

whatever is in the domain of the experience of separation,
well,
it's all the same really.

it's not a bad idea to have a foot in both camps for the time being.

Yes anything that is form has no intrinsic meaning,
so there is no intrinsic meaning in the observable universe,
yet purpose is essential to cause and effect, a thing arises out of necessity from the circumstances which are present,
cause and effect transcended as need dissolves, passing into the unknown.

@

[Dennis Mahar]

Have you seen that wonderful, exuberant, spiritual/existential movie called Babette's Feast?

the coming to be of the possibility of all the things,
thinging in their thingness,
coming together,
thinging in unison.

The Babette pattern and it's project 'got' something I reckon.
in the sense of a way of being that can get around in a World.
an existential pattern.

[Cathy Preston]

No, I`ve never heard of it, but I`m beginning to see.

Transcendent versus Immanence
Nothing to go beyond since it`s always right there

[ForbidenRea]

Jesus said, " Forgive, them, Father...For they know not what they do."

[Dennis Mahar]

Cathy,

Transcendent versus Immanence
Nothing to go beyond since it`s always right there

transcendent means being outside space/time.
immanent means being inside space/time.

are you saying,
transcendence within immanence.
as a resolution of the versus, the conflict.

a part of the immanence,
within it,
and
awake to it,
in some way transcendent or having a degree of understanding that gives the mood 'calm abiding'.

[Cathy Preston]

Calm abiding within the flux, both transcendent and immanent, not meaningful nor meaningless.

I'm talking about the idea of going beyond. Jesus, Buddha talk of something beyond the illusion of a physical world, the promise of going beyond the cycle of birth/death is what keeps many dedicated to the path, at the same time it hinders understanding with a belief in something beyond the here and now, so if one feels they have mentally transcended they may fall into the trap of thinking they will wholly transcend upon death. Transcendence is true with the realization of existence beyond limited finite self. Immanence is true as there is no going beyond consciousness, it is always within space and time.

So when we say the "the self" has no meaning, we have transcended time and space, but when we look into the void we realize beyond consciousness is an impossibility, no meaning, so ultimately meaning is ALWAYS staring us in the face. Meaning or no meaning is within the moment, never beyond. To say ALL is meaningless is to negate cause and effect, to say there is ultimate meaning is to negate cause and effect.

Before transcendence we think the self (matter) has inherent meaning, we suffer because we add personal intention or purpose onto the moment. In the middle of transcendence we think consciousness or awareness has inherent meaning, we suffer because we add unifying intention or purpose onto the moment. After transcendence we understand that self (matter) is none other than consciousness, consciousness none other than matter, we no longer add intention or purpose onto the moment, yet the moment is full.

Meaning is not found in matter, and meaning is not found in consciousness yet when they unify there is action, and it is right. The miracle is not that something exists, the miracle is that when I get hungry I eat.
#

[Dennis Mahar]

What's been come up with is,

Universe comprises matter, energy, space, time and significance.
machinery.
these are forms and what is form lacks self-existence.
Nagarjuna, recognising emptiness, entered a profound silence and declared 'practically, no assertion can be made thereafter that is not inference',
that all is empty,
that matter, energy, space, time and significance do not exist from their own side or are not self made.

Dignaga, recognising emptiness, felt it wasn't enough,
he looked at what was being implied or what was entailed,
whether an inference could be justified,
if a cognition could be valid.
He satisfied himself.

He declared something like, not a hair on a head or a blade of grass is not 'Lordly'.

mind blowing.

[Amphiaraus]

In order to truly redeem oneself, you must first forgive yourself. It at least makes the process much easier. I had my kundalini appear to me as a blue goddess the night I chose to forgive myself, and the energy I received from it has brought about my redemption.
One is not strong enough to redeem themselves if they can not first forgive themselves, because they will not be working to their full potential.

[mental vagrant]

How would you defind forgiving ones' selfs? Is there a model?

[ForbidenRea]

"Forgive; and forget! Don't always expect to get"
DMX

[Dennis Mahar]

How would you defind forgiving ones' selfs? Is there a model?

looks like a Ponzi Scheme.

You'd have to have a wrongdoing self in order to have forgiveness showing up.
then you'd have to have a forgiving self so you could get redemption.
then you'd have to have a redeemed self.
then you'd have to have a seargent-at-arms self to keep the wrong doing self in check.

obviously there has to be another self supervising the operation.
then there'd have to be another self keeping an eye on the supervisor.

looks like the loonies have overtaken the asylum.

[Beingof1]

How would you defind forgiving ones' selfs? Is there a model?

looks like a Ponzi Scheme.

You'd have to have a wrongdoing self in order to have forgiveness showing up.
then you'd have to have a forgiving self so you could get redemption.
then you'd have to have a redeemed self.
then you'd have to have a seargent-at-arms self to keep the wrong doing self in check.

obviously there has to be another self supervising the operation.
then there'd have to be another self keeping an eye on the supervisor.

looks like the loonies have overtaken the asylum.

Unless of course, forgiveness allows you to see through the created self image.

The ego is created from the foundation of a self defense mechanism. This was originally manufactured to insulate from attack or injury. Most are a process of a legion of childhood trauma. The ego is a scar - like when the hand is cut a scar forms and is thicker than the skin to protect the injured part of the body.

If you do not need forgiveness than you are free. There is no need to stand guard over the freedom. You use forgiveness as a tool to reach an unattached state.

[Dennis Mahar]

forgiveness shows up as just another ploy of ego.

it remains in the domain of a belief in the self as having inherent existence.

it's like believing the little guys in the tv set are real.

[Beingof1]

forgiveness shows up as just another ploy of ego.

Who is making this statement?

it remains in the domain of a belief in the self as having inherent existence.

Who says it remains in the domain a belief in the self as having inherent existence?

it's like believing the little guys in the tv set are real.

Who just posted this?

[Dennis Mahar]

causes/conditions did.

[Beingof1]

causes/conditions did.

Uh huh.

If causes and conditions bring about unforgiveness because of resentment - then the cause/condition will lead you to forgiveness as a cure.

Who posted

causes/conditions did.

?

Another cause/condition ad infinitum? Its like saying there is a little guy in my head that made me say that. Who would be the little guy in his head, and his head .....? Infinite regress is the result.

It's like believing the little guys in the tv set are real.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Another cause/condition ad infinitum?

Interdependent webs; the "circle of existence".

Take anything and it's always "everything else" that's causing it. There's an infinite dimension to such logic.

But these things only appear to exist by grace of an eternal escape from actual capture; for ever "disappearing" just behind the horizon. Once caught it's never anywhere..

[Dennis Mahar]

if you want to give phenomena like forgiveness and redemption,
absolute existence.

it's OK,
I forgive you.

[Beingof1]

Another cause/condition ad infinitum?

Interdependent webs; the "circle of existence".

Take anything and it's always "everything else" that's causing it. There's an infinite dimension to such logic.

You know I agree. But we are not talking about a "thing". We are discussing a state of being. When you introduce being - choice arises. To say anything else is denial. You chose to post.

Now you can say your state of being is caused but I would ask you what then with choice? As we have talked about in the past the two components of reality are experience and observation. You can claim you were caused to choose by the Big Bang and I would ask; did you choose to say that?

But these things only appear to exist by grace of an eternal escape from actual capture; for ever "disappearing" just behind the horizon. Once caught it's never anywhere..

You see - this is the contradiction. When we look at philosophy form one side, we do not make a choice because we are caused. On the flip side, we choose the path to enlightenment.

Heads or tails?

Wanna know the answer?


Dennis:

if you want to give phenomena like forgiveness and redemption,
absolute existence.

it's OK,
I forgive you.

What an elaborate evasion. Nicely done.

Lesson in how to avoid an answer and derail any meaningful discussion. Let me file that away.

[ForbidenRea]

How would you defind forgiving ones' selfs? Is there a model?

looks like a Ponzi Scheme.

You'd have to have a wrongdoing self in order to have forgiveness showing up.
then you'd have to have a forgiving self so you could get redemption.
then you'd have to have a redeemed self.
then you'd have to have a seargent-at-arms self to keep the wrong doing self in check.
Mmmhmm...
Were it not for 2+2=4

obviously there has to be another self supervising the operation.
then there'd have to be another self keeping an eye on the supervisor.

looks like the loonies have overtaken the asylum.