LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Kevin Solway » Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:28 pm

Father Peter wrote:Kevin, you said Jesus was not deluded. Then Jesus' experience of God was real. Is that what you mean?

Yes, but I understand that Jesus's experience of God is identical to mine, and different to yours.

For example, when Jesus said, "Do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven", that too, was real. That is, Jesus's instruction accords perfectly with what I know to be true and right.

But when Jesus tells you (as you report) that it's okay for you to call yourself "father", and that your students can do so as well, then that's not real. In other words, my experience tells me that this idea of yours is not coming from God.

But that's alright . . . we all make mistakes!

This is merely play time for you and has the appearance of affability, but no real sincerity or compassion.

"Compassion", to me, means understanding (including personal identification), tolerance, and helpfulness. I truly try to embody these things.

As regards "play time", I think that rather than tell someone in perfect seriousness that they are speaking utter nonsense, it is often better to reveal the silliness of their views in some humorous way. Is that not much more human? It's a way of laughing at our human foibles. Ideally, it is a laughing-with rather than a laughing-at.

As for the feminine, the highest initiate disciple of Jesus was Mary Magdalene, who was not a man, or male. She became strong and decisive, that is what the allegory of "male" means, not the gender identifications that you imagine.

To me, and several of us here on the forum, "male" means strong, decisive, rational, etc. So we have the same meaning that Jesus apparently did. He said that he would make Mary male just so she could have a living spirit (according to the Gospel of Thomas). That too accords with my experience. (Which is to say, if you are able to give a woman a living spirit, then you have done something truly miraculous, and can't expect for much more than that).

I don't recall Jesus ever saying that Mary was his spiritual equal. If anyone says that he did, I will suspect them of making up stories.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Kevin Solway » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:11 pm

Carl G wrote:
Kevin: but all the rest are true by definition.
Carl: Beliefs also depend on definition.
Kevin: Yes, beliefs depend on definitions, but those truths I mentioned are only definitions.

And so truth by definition is a belief. It is not necessarily reflective of the real world.

I don't follow your reasoning here.

If beliefs rested only upon definitions then there would be no chance that they are wrong. But most people's beliefs rest on guesses and fantasies, apart from just definitions.


Truth by definition is fine for those things we can verify.

Truths by definition (ie, truths that are composed only of definitions, such 1+1=2) can only be verified logically. They can't be verified in the empirical world, or scientifically.

Beliefs which can be tested can be verified. Then it is no longer belief. Verification provides a working truth, as opposed to a hypothetical truth.

Anything that is verified in the empirical world, or by science, is always tentative in nature. In the empirical world, nothing can ever be 100% verified as true.

You could be right, or you could be wrong. How would you know?

Do you know for sure that you are having experiences right now? I'll assume that you are sure that you are. Now is that only a mere belief on your part, or is it something definitely true?

It is in that manner that I know my ideas (about God, etc) are absolutely true. That is, they are logically true, and can be logically verified, and are immediate.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:28 pm

(okay, I know I wasn't going to post until after I finished the book, but Dan missed this one so badly that I had to catch it for him)

Kevin Solway wrote:"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." Matthew 23:1

[What do you make of that one, "Father" Peter?]


Father Peter wrote:Kevin you asked about my name Father Peter. I can tell you that Jesus asked me personally to be called that. So I follow that.


So, you believe that Jesus is into contradicting Himself? Can Satan not deceive you by claiming to be the Christ?
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Shahrazad » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:48 pm

Eliza,

(okay, I know I wasn't going to post until after I finished the book, but Dan missed this one so badly that I had to catch it for him)
Dan? Don't you mean Kevin?
User avatar
Shahrazad
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby tooyi » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:52 pm

I don't intend to increase your burden unnecessarily Father Peter, so I will only ask for your view on a bible chapter. Too many people mounting at once but I guess that is your job, right?

John 14

What do you consider the chapter is talking about and what means:

6 : "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
26 : "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.".

Who (or perhaps rather what) is the Comforter, that teaches all things?

27 : "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."
Let him who has ears hear.
tooyi
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:25 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Kevin Solway » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:04 pm

divine focus wrote:The essential understanding is the same.

Buddhism definitely does not believe in an intelligent creator-God who consciously creates things.

Nor does Christianity, but try telling that to those who think they are Christians!
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Alex Jacob » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:32 am

(Forgive me, Ataraxia, for the following disjointed, emotional ramblings. I have far to go yet, far!)

What an odd impass. Obviously, I can't be of much help, except to say that at least making an effort toward 'understanding' is a good thing. Maybe it is better than, like some philistine business-person or some arrogant and avaricious temporal ruler, you just spend your time trying to get ahold of wealth or in controlling and directing other human beings? But here, we engage in philosophizing! In soaring dialectic! On another thread I referred to Hesse. I really think at the end of the day all we have is our art, and our spiritual and religious life, in whatever form we live it, is in a very real way our one and true art! I know, I know, I really do sympathize with you! Your poor head goes into a tailspin or a hurricane, the brain cells get all heated up, you start to snort in your really rather polite Australian way, steam comes out of your ears: you must have your descriptions completely paired-down to the most essential, language must be precise and exact, you cannot bear paradox or ambiguity, or that Life itself be extremely multivalent, multiplicitous, variegated! Be still, be still, all is well, all is well! Someday soon I will sing you a lullaby that will seem to come from the very stars themselves, a resonant, soft lullaby of Mother Maria herself, and this lullaby will pick you up like a magic carpet and take you floating before the furnace of the Lord, and you will glow with golden glow! Soon, soon! Patience, patience!

For me, at the end of the day, strange as it sounds, there is good and bad poetry. Yep, that's how it is. You sing some beautiful song in some beautiful way, you create a nice space for yourself and the people you love, and you try to live your life in a way that responds to 'the spirit', where there is some kind of recognition of and offering to 'the divine', and where you allow yourself, with a certain humility I suppose, to e guided along the path of your life. *Sigh* I know, I know, there is not a great deal in that for a certain kind of mind, it is like a sort of nursery rhyme that you'd tell to some children who sit there enchanted, their imaginations receiving the images, their feelings responding to the images, and then its cupcake time, and after that, a little nap! And then they wake up and its play time all over again...

But that is really how I see things, in a sort of ultimate way. These so-called 'wise' people, at the end of the day, what do they 'do'? It's less what they DO, and more, I submit, what they feel like. How do you feel around them? Do you find a way to carry away with you some of those feelings? And what do you do with those feelings? Because everyone in the whole world, as I see things, is searching for and hunting for and living and dying for, just a drop, just a touch, of a sort of bliss and well-being that---they say---is a by-product of an experience of 'God'.

The wondrous sages who have created this site want their religion and their spirituality and their realization...to come to them in just one flavor, I suppose that is a kind of transparent, colorless light. Buddhism, as I understand it in its Indian context, was a reaction to an overabundance of forms and multiplicities, to brahminism, and represents a means of getting back to the most essential, supposedly. But as Buddhism develops, it reproduces the whole shbang all over again, and you almost have to cuts ITS form away, and start again.

In a very short---far too short---amount of time we will all pass out of existence, and it seems to me that while we are here, and I mean this in reference to a sort of core human offering, we only ever really have a little bit of love to offer people, some little drops. Yes, yes, I know there are so many different roads of learning and accomplishment and so many ways to benefit 'humanity', but I am speaking more precisely of something else. For me, subjective though it is as a statement, that is what the practice of religion means to me, I mean above and beyond so many other different things (good ethics, a sort of purity, compassion, good sense, high thinking, beautiful culture, some kind of contribution...)

Kevin (et al) are 'non-dualists' of the Sankara school, and the same debate, the same conflict has beein going on between that rigid and demanding school and basically all the other schools. But not everyone is of this non-dualist school, and not everyone 'submits to this logic'. The most lovely manifestation of a religious form, for me, is the Krishna religion, but that is possibly because I am an artist and I love its 'art'. Kevin, I assume, reads the Bhagavad Gita as a 'non-dual' document, and yet it is very clearly not subject to non-dualism. It is a 'song' in which 'God' speaks directly, God as person. There seems to be a strong underpinning similarity between the 'personalist' religions, and Chrsitianity and Vaishnavism (Krishna-ism) have a great deal in common, but it is very, very difficult for these traditions to 'converse' with 'non-dualism', and it seems that this conversation is having that problem, and will always have it.

And that is why I say: Ease up! Take a few deep breaths! Help is on its way! Soon, very soon, some odd new feelings will come trickling up from within your own selves, a delicious effervescence! Then, you will understand that which your lopsided brains never could!

I won't abandon you, I won't!
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Kevin Solway » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:06 am

Alex Jacob wrote:Kevin (et al) are 'non-dualists' of the Sankara school, and the same debate, the same conflict has beein going on between that rigid and demanding school and basically all the other schools. But not everyone is of this non-dualist school, and not everyone 'submits to this logic'. The most lovely manifestation of a religious form, for me, is the Krishna religion, but that is possibly because I am an artist and I love its 'art'. Kevin, I assume, reads the Bhagavad Gita as a 'non-dual' document, and yet it is very clearly not subject to non-dualism.

You are very wrong. Personalized expressions for the non-dual, such as "God", or "Krishna", or even "Mother Nature", are just poetry, and non-dualists do not have any issue with this poetry . . . so long as it is recognized as poetry and imagery.

However, the personalists tend to have a big issue with the non-dualists, because, to the personalists, it's not just poetry and imagery. To them, "Mother Nature" would be a real woman.

It's like calling your dog "Fred" and thereafter thinking that he is a real human being and no longer a dog.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Alex Jacob » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:32 am

Kevin wrote:

"You are very wrong. Personalized expressions for the non-dual, such as "God", or "Krishna", or even "Mother Nature", are just poetry, and non-dualists do not have any issue with this poetry . . . so long as it is recognized as poetry and imagery.

"However, the personalists tend to have a big issue with the non-dualists, because, to the personalists, it's not just poetry and imagery. To them, "Mother Nature" would be a real woman."

Well, I am aware of a school of Vaishnavism that regards Krisnha (Vishnu) not as 'like' a divine being as a poetical term, but as the divine being from which all *this*, and the content of endless infinities of universes and worlds emanate, but this 'Krishna' is at the same time a person, an individual, who also 'maintains' a body, and resides at the core of being, on his sacred planet, Vaikuntha. Where we are located, that is, where our earth takes place, is in 'Krishna's external energy' or 'inferior energy', and what we know as consciousness, which makes us what we are, is something that arises within creation, and exists within all living entities is a 'seed', the Atman, and that we humans are especially qualified to realize it, if we choose to do so.

In this manifestation of an 'external' energy of a divine and completely conscious being, we are faced with choices: do we move farther away from the source of all life and consciousness, Krishna in his sacred planet of pure bliss, ever-expanding bliss, bliss ever-new, or do we remain stuck in this marginal area, the life and death realm, a Plato's Cave of images and events, the realm where Maya holds sway and entices us away from realization? And if we are to begin to 'go home' what is it that a 'devotee' of Krishna does that distinguishes him or her from what those enticed and mired by Maya do? What, then, is 'spiritual practice'? What does 'being spiritual' mean?

It is all really about these essential questions, as I see things. (Are you going to sign up for my correspondence course are not?!)

I rather think, Kevin, you are not up on your terms if you actually believe what you wrote above. The sort of 'realization' of the classical non-dualists, within the Indian school, has a great deal in common with your doctrines, and does not accept the 'representations' that are part and parcel of almost all other schools, all other disciplines. They are usually always described as 'illusions'. From my angle, I tend to see the general Indian opus, from the earliest Vedas, through thr Puranas, into the philosophy and including the Carvaka philosophy of pure materialism and atheism as being the most fruitful area for the sorts of considerations that are being explored here, on these pages, and it is notable that Buddhism arose in this context too. And I can most certainly place Father Bowes within this conversation with no problems whatever, since Chrsitianity, as I see it, is quite akin to and sits nicely within a Vishu-like conception of God. It is a veritible 'tantric practice', a multi-leveled practice, that takes into consideraton different stages of human (conscious) development. I grant you that within this gradiated 'tantra' that there is a great deal of room for error and misunderstanding, if not outright misleading, but this is also part and parcel of the process of spiituality as I see it. (I do not mean 'tantra' in any sense as naughty sexual practices, but as ritual worship in all its different manifestations, as well as symbolical representations, yantras, mantras, etc).

A problem here, if not 'the problem', is that you seem to want to dominate the terms of discourse, and you want your terms and your attitudes toward your own spiritual life to trump all others, and in that, I submit as I stir the Datura paste that I will soon annoint you with, is as a result of a certain immaturity. Also, it is really about time for you to take a wife....

'Just poetry'...no, that is not right. So many of these representations are allusions and metaphors of an almost unexplicable nature, and are part and parcel of perception.
__________________________________

In a guided meditation this morning, I gave the Orangutan a cupcake!
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby divine focus » Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:54 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
divine focus wrote:The essential understanding is the same.

Buddhism definitely does not believe in an intelligent creator-God who consciously creates things.

Like I said, Buddhism doesn't deal with the metaphysical. It only provides enough metaphysical foundation to couch its pragmatic approach: cycles of birth and death, lives of suffering, and the personal way out. The core understanding is the same; only the words are different.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Kevin Solway » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:54 am

divine focus wrote:The core understanding is the same; only the words are different.

The "core understanding" to many Christians is that there is an intelligent God who consciously created things. It is also a core understanding to many Christians that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

For them, take those things away from Christianity, and there is no Christianity. So that is hugely different to the core understanding of Buddhism.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Kevin Solway » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:41 pm

Alex Jacob wrote:Well, I am aware of a school of Vaishnavism that regards Krisnha (Vishnu) not as 'like' a divine being as a poetical term, but as the divine being from which all *this*, and the content of endless infinities of universes and worlds emanate, but this 'Krishna' is at the same time a person, an individual, who also 'maintains' a body

That's right. To use the dog analogy again, it's like a calling one's dog "Fred" and then holding that the dog isn't just 'like' a person, but is an actual person who maintains the body of an actual person, and can have conversations as an actual, real, intelligent person, etc.

It is of course, rubbish.

This kind of thinking is the product of a lonely mind that is creating imaginary companionship, but is not aware enough to know, or to want to know, that it is imaginary.

The sort of 'realization' of the classical non-dualists, within the Indian school, has a great deal in common with your doctrines, and does not accept the 'representations' that are part and parcel of almost all other schools, all other disciplines.

It does, so long as those representations are known for what they really are - ie, only representations.

Keep in mind that all of the language used by non-dualists is in fact nothing more than poetry. The term "non-dual" is poetry. It is a representation - a pointer only.

They are usually always described as 'illusions'.

They are called 'illusions' only when people are fooled by them.

For example, if you see the mirage of water in the desert and think it is really water, then I might tell you that you were fooled by an 'illusion'.

But the wise are not fooled by illusions, so they have none.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Alex Jacob » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:44 pm

Ah, but you see in that, precisely in that, is the crux of the whole problem, and if the truth be told it is your problem; you identify it, and you articulate it. However, you do not decide any of these matters in any ultimate sense. You do not arbitrate what is and what is not, or what is 'real' and what is not. There is no linguistic trick that you weild that gives you this 'right', though most certainly you are free to offer any opinion you wish. But the core issue here is that of Ultimate Arbitration, and who gets to finally decide.

And furthermore!... ;-) ...I think that the dog-named-Fred is a thoroughly crappy example, and I might add utterly artless, devoid of imagination, and really rather vulgar. Tsk, tsk. It simply does not function at all in this conversation. That's it! I'm calling the police!

All jokes aside, this is the strange part: There are all sorts of spiritual perceivers, all sorts of people---so many different people---who have had so many different sorts of experience with God. As an indefinable 'energy', as a dear, dear friend, as a person one talks to and who talks to you, it is endless. There are so many different 'rasas' (relationships), and I don't think that any particular one gets to trump any other.

They have all lived a little while here, and then they all pass on...

Obviously, and this is sort of analogous to your position, many of the 'dualists', the personalisits (those who perceive of God as a knowable being they can have a direct relationship with), tend to deny the experience of the impersonalists! They say it is a third rate relationship! They even have names for them: Mayavadi, et cetera. One pole can be just as intolerant as the other. And so instead of saying 'This kind of thinking is the product of a lonely mind that is creating imaginary companionship, but is not aware enough to know, or want to know, that it is imaginary', they would say that the 'mayavadis' are having an experience of an outer and not first-rate 'energy' of God and calling it the supreme experience. Yet they seem to imply there are other, deeper levels to this 'rasa'. Who ultimatey decides?

Maybe those pesky Jews are right after all. Maybe it depends little on what you believe, but on how you act, what you do?

It seems to me that Ramakrishna---if one can refer to him as an example---explored each of the different rasas, and 'lived' in each one. I don't think that one was represented or even experienced as 'superior' to another, but it always seemed to me that at the end of the day his relationship with God---the Great Mother---was exceptionally personal, it was always a very, very personal 'rasa'. (And since his 'dog' was female I think we'd better call her, say, 'Sally' and not 'Fred'.)

I think that 'God' always shows up as a sort of reflection of elements of one's own self, or one's attributes.

You must be a sort of...diaphanous, white mist!
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Kevin Solway » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:41 pm

Alex Jacob wrote:However, you do not decide any of these matters in any ultimate sense. You do not arbitrate what is and what is not, or what is 'real' and what is not.

Oh yes I do.

Of course, I may be entirely misinterpreting what I see and hear from those people I hold to be ignorant. And in that respect, "God" (Nature) will be the final judge.

And furthermore!... ;-) ...I think that the dog-named-Fred is a thoroughly crappy example, and I might add utterly artless, devoid of imagination, and really rather vulgar.

I think it is indeed art . . . in the style of "burlesque".

All jokes aside, this is the strange part: There are all sorts of spiritual perceivers, all sorts of people---so many different people---who have had so many different sorts of experience with God.

I am the one to decide whether they have experienced God, or something else.

I don't think that any particular one gets to trump any other.

Are you sure you are qualified to judge this matter?

They have all lived a little while here, and then they all pass on...

They pass on none-the-wiser for the most part.

Obviously, and this is sort of analogous to your position, many of the 'dualists', the personalisits (those who perceive of God as a knowable being they can have a direct relationship with), tend to deny the experience of the impersonalists!

Non-dualists do not regard themselves to be "impersonalists" - it is only the personalists who characterize them as such, and are thus creating a straw-man.

The non-dual can be personally and completely known in a direct relationship. Further, just as we speak of "Mother Nature", and just as we may hear it speaking to us as we wander through the fields, or as we lie on our death-bed, or as our child-bearing years draws to a close (in the case of women), or as the voice of conscience, it naturally occurs to our mind in the form of a person.

I myself might appear to someone as a real manifestation of God, in person so to speak, if I should do something that awakens them to the Infinite and timeless world of the All.

They say it is a third rate relationship!

The true impersonalists are people like the academic intellectuals of whom we spoke earlier in the thread, and about whom Nietzsche made his scathing comments.

They keep themselves at an intellectual distance from things, and do not become "personally" involved. That's what makes them "impersonal". They do not sacrifice themselves, but remain as onlookers from a distance of a million miles, sheltered behind a thousand barricades and trying to peak through.

Maybe it depends little on what you believe, but on how you act, what you do?

Yes. And it depends on whether a person speaks the truth.

It seems to me that Ramakrishna---if one can refer to him as an example---explored each of the different rasas, and 'lived' in each one. I don't think that one was represented or even experienced as 'superior' to another, but it always seemed to me that at the end of the day his relationship with God---the Great Mother---was exceptionally personal, it was always a very, very personal 'rasa'. (And since his 'dog' was female I think we'd better call her, say, 'Sally' and not 'Fred'.)

I respect Ramakrishna greatly and made a pilgrimage to his temple in Calcutta. But I understand his personalizing of God ("the Great Mother") to be the same as my "Mother Nature", and only poetry. A very personal, and above all loving poetry.

You must be a sort of...diaphanous, white mist!

Yeah. My icon is fitting, eh. "The way of the Sun" and "The Holy Ghost" all wrapped up into one .
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby divine focus » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:16 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
divine focus wrote:The core understanding is the same; only the words are different.

The "core understanding" to many Christians is that there is an intelligent God who consciously created things. It is also a core understanding to many Christians that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

For them, take those things away from Christianity, and there is no Christianity. So that is hugely different to the core understanding of Buddhism.

What I'm saying is that the understanding isn't only intellectual. Thoughts are just a description. The core understanding is a mode of operation that allows those thoughts their accuracy. The Son and Holy Spirit are the two aspects of that mode, and the Father is the Source, the All, which is somehow personal. It must be some kind of you.

I agree that Jesus dying for our sins is illogical. The original understanding may have been the Son dying because of our forgetfulness of the Trinity.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby maestro » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:47 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:I respect Ramakrishna greatly and made a pilgrimage to his temple in Calcutta. But I understand his personalizing of God ("the Great Mother") to be the same as my "Mother Nature", and only poetry. A very personal, and above all loving poetry.

Kevin, It seems you are not really familiar with Ramakrishna's life, his relationship with his mother is not some metaphorical poetry, he used to actually see the Goddess Kali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali (which would be diagnosed as a hallucination today). And his relationship was very personal and emotional, for example he would weep in front of the statue of the Goddess, even became angry at the Goddess, at times refusing to feed her (A Hindu custom in which statues of gods are fed by the priests). In fact previous to his fame Ramakrishna was himself worried about his mental state on account of all these visions, when a group of scholars examined him and declared him enlightened, leading to his fame spreading far and wide.


All these fantastic tales about him make me wonder about his enlightenment. The Buddha with his clear and precise mind fits in more with my view of enlightenment.
User avatar
maestro
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Kevin Solway » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:26 pm

maestro wrote:his relationship with his mother is not some metaphorical poetry, he used to actually see the Goddess Kali.

He probably had a bit too much weed that day.

I allow geniuses a little madness.

He would weep in front of the statue of the Goddess, even became angry at the Goddess, at times refusing to feed her.

Like Otto Weininger, Ramakrishna was a bit of a dramatist, and he made a big display of getting personally involved with truth, rather than thinking about it from a remote and artificial distance. I think that's what it's all about.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby tooyi » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:36 pm

Without intelligence is the wisest of them all.

Evolution is unintelligent, timeless, and wise.

Imbesil is laughing.
Is he laughing at you,
or is he laughing with you?

Found,
stone covered in writing,
I carry with me,
until I lose it again.
How then will I know,
that the willagers who stone me,
are trying to impart wisdom?

High art,
low art.
Razor blades,
or the blossom spring.
Which hurts the most,
when you lose yourself in them?

When teenagers cut themselves,
is it because they don't
understand?

First the kingdom of god,
only by the mercy of god,
forgive yourself,
old goat.

How can you grow a beard,
if you are but a child?
Let him who has ears hear.
tooyi
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:25 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Alex Jacob » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:21 pm

"All these fantastic tales about him make me wonder about his enlightenment. The Buddha with his clear and precise mind fits in more with my view of enlightenment."

This seems to me another demonstration of a tendency one notices on these pages: your categories of 'enlightenment', 'spiritual knowledge', etc., hinge upon aesthetic definitions. You have a sort of pre-established model of the enlightened man (which on these pages, considering your examples, is fabulously arbitrary), and if the supposed enlightened subject does not conform to the model, his 'enlightenment' is questionable.

Again, it seems to me that some part of all this has to do with 'flavors', with colors, with likes and dislikes, and also hinges into what sorts of people you are, something about personality types. You seem 'precise' and 'clear' people, mostly very boyish and cavilier it's true, probably with a strong math background, quite a little bit anal-retentive one supposes, quite possibly you'd wave goodby to your poop as you flush, a little nostalgic, clearly inclined toward homo-eroticism, fearful of 'girls', keeping the treefort locked and each one with a key, and anyway most of you are likely still virgins...

Ramakrishna, I heard from someone, when asked what his experience of the bliss of God felt like, said that it was as if all the pores of his skin had transformed into vaginas, and...

I never got the last part, I mean, what was God doing to the poor man? It is a little weird to talk about, I guess, and though I have never had that experience, it does seem to me that the experience of the Divine is often of that sort, but how would you describe it? Ecstatic, out of your own control, embarrassing to your definition of self, strangely and also embarrassingly erotic, or touching on what sexuality means as a metaphor within our experience, in the sense of the pleasures we seek, our drive toward them.

I think its time for some of the first tantric spiritual rituals to be doled-out to the QRS, and all those who wish to gain immeasurably through their implimentation. In front of an image of the Goddess Kali strip naked and rub yourself in butter, and then carefully, voluptuously, lovingly and a little naughtily, dress yourself in the lingerie that seems most suited to a repressed, fastidious sort. During the first ritual I just want you to prance around a little in front of the mirror but for no more than ten minutes. Do not get carried away! Even if you really, really like what your seeing! These are deeply potent exercises and in each of your cases must be undertaken with tremendous care.

Please get back to me on this thread and post the results...enough of all this brainy activity and bantering, let's get down to business here, people!

Guru has arrived....
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby maestro » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:57 am

Kevin Solway wrote:He probably had a bit too much weed that day.

I allow geniuses a little madness.

Tsk, tsk Kevin, you are clearly projecting onto Ramakrishna, I doubt he ever took hallucinogens. Conversations and meetings with the Goddess were a daily affair with him.
Kevin Solway wrote:Like Otto Weininger, Ramakrishna was a bit of a dramatist, and he made a big display of getting personally involved with truth, rather than thinking about it from a remote and artificial distance. I think that's what it's all about.

Oh my! A dramatist. His whole life was imbued with the "divine intoxication", he had a personal and emotional relation with the Goddess Kali. Once he decided to experience the love of Krishna too, so he dressed in women's garb for several months and danced and pranced to get his attention and it is said he even started to menstruate, such was his enthusiasm (I guess you would be horrified that a sage became a woman of his own volition).

I think you are attracted to his teachings which is standard Non-Dualist stuff. This was taught to him by his guru who was a rationalist and Non-Dualist.

Alex Jacob wrote:This seems to me another demonstration of a tendency one notices on these pages: your categories of 'enlightenment', 'spiritual knowledge', etc., hinge upon aesthetic definitions. You have a sort of pre-established model of the enlightened man (which on these pages, considering your examples, is fabulously arbitrary), and if the supposed enlightened subject does not conform to the model, his 'enlightenment' is questionable.

I think he had an abnormal brain chemistry which caused him to have hallucinations and ecstatic trances almost all of the time. Ramakrishna's are born not made. On the other hand Buddha's path is accessible to anybody, it is more like science in that way (mix x and y and get z).
User avatar
maestro
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Nick Treklis » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:17 am

Maybe Father Peter's experience can be explained here
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:13 am

I think it's pretty obvious that in some sense we're programmed to believe in something as a means to fill in gaps in our understanding. Fortunately we're also programmed to be able to critically analyse our programming.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby Kevin Solway » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:42 pm

maestro wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:He probably had a bit too much weed that day.

I allow geniuses a little madness.

Tsk, tsk Kevin, you are clearly projecting onto Ramakrishna, I doubt he ever took hallucinogens. Conversations and meetings with the Goddess were a daily affair with him.

Yes, you're probably right about him having abnormal brain chemistry - I was only kidding about the weed. My point was that it was chemically induced.

Oh my! A dramatist. His whole life was imbued with the "divine intoxication", he had a personal and emotional relation with the Goddess Kali. Once he decided to experience the love of Krishna too, so he dressed in women's garb for several months and danced and pranced to get his attention and it is said he even started to menstruate, such was his enthusiasm.

Yeah, I think that's great fun, and I don't have a problem with it. There's no point in repressing things. And I also wonder how much of it was showmanship - in a huge and very popular temple. The Indians are not averse to putting on a good show.

When I was over there it was reported on the news that a statue of Ganesh was having tears of real milk. Within twenty-four hours thousands of statues of Ganesh around the country were drowning in gallons of milk. So they have a perverse sense of entertainment, shall we say.

I think you are attracted to his teachings which is standard Non-Dualist stuff. This was taught to him by his guru who was a rationalist and Non-Dualist.

I am equally attracted to the passionate side of his teachings - which is to say the "bhakti", in addition to the "jnana".
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby tooyi » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:48 pm

maestro wrote:I doubt he ever took hallucinogens.


If he didn't, he didn't have to take by mouth. The pineal gland is filled with it. With this thread to Jesus's words: It is not that which goes in the mouth that poisons you, it is what comes out.

If you want to understand my meaning you are going to have to follow me... for a while. It doesn't mean you have to tie in an umbilical chord.

Cup runneth over...
Let him who has ears hear.
tooyi
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:25 am

Re: LATEST SHOW: Mystical Christianity - Father Peter Bowes

Postby maestro » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:37 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:Yeah, I think that's great fun, and I don't have a problem with it. There's no point in repressing things. And I also wonder how much of it was showmanship - in a huge and very popular temple. The Indians are not averse to putting on a good show.

I think you and David seem to differ in this respect, I imagine that he will chastise you for getting involved in the emotional drama of the crowds. You seem to have a predilection for the worldly enlightened man, which is an Indian figure too (for example Krishna).
User avatar
maestro
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests