It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When does a group belief become a cult and why?

page: 23
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by Mr Green
 


Did you pay for the book? Do you know what I'm getting at


A friend offered me it free but he lived too far away. I picked up a copy in the library but was so impressed I wanted a copy of my own. Im glad I have a copy of my own as I read it many times.

I would gladly give my copy to those that want to read it, Ive offered this to several on ATS. It is the sort of book you would just give willingly to others in order for them to read it.

Yes I know what you mean but its up to the individual, its freely available in libraries but I wanted my own copy .




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Eckhart Tolle"The Power O f Now"
PAGE 75
What Is The Power Of Now??


None other than the power of your presence your consciousness liberated from thought forms.


That is pioneering ideology quite brilliant.
Yes I have the book as well and I didnt buy it ,it was given to me.
It should stand alongside the Bible as standard mainstream household literature.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
The language of symbols is like a computer language (C, FORTRAN, Basic, etc.). Each symbol or command stands for a series of instructions. If you don't know those instructions, you can't understand this language.

Even if you can speak the symbolic language, or computer language, it doesn't mean that you understand the underlying "machine" language, because you need to compile instructions so the "machine" will be able to 'understand" it.

However, knowing the principles of how things really "work", "the order and connection" of things, will make you capable of seeing through the language, and deconstruct it as the "bearer of the meaning". Language disappears when one knows the "substratum".


Very well put, very well
The true power of language and vocalization ...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by headlightone
Eckhart Tolle"The Power O f Now"
PAGE 75
What Is The Power Of Now??


None other than the power of your presence your consciousness liberated from thought forms.


That is pioneering ideology quite brilliant.
Yes I have the book as well and I didnt buy it ,it was given to me.
It should stand alongside the Bible as standard mainstream household literature.



I'm very happy that the concept of The Power Of Now is resonating with you, but "pioneering ideology" it is definitely not. You are forgetting centuries of ancient Asian teachings. It is regurgitated Taoism/Buddhism at best.

But look, as long as it helps you more power to E.T. This is not sarcasm!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
This is a very interesting text by David R. Loy, a professor of philosophy in Tokyo (I think). I found it somewhere on the Internet, but don't have a link anymore.




Dead Words, Living Words, and Healing Words:

The Disseminations of Dogen and Eckhart

David R. Loy

From: Healing Deconstruction: Postmodern Thought in Buddhism and Christianity
(David Loy, ed., Atlanta Georgia:Scholars Press, 1996) pp.33-51


Here are some interesting passages.




An alternative approach was hinted at by Ch'an master Yun-men Wen-yen (d. 949):

"There are words which go beyond words. This is like eating rice everyday without any attachment to a grain of rice." Hui-neng tells us how words can go beyond words, in the process of explaining why he has no dharma to transmit to others: Only those who do not possess a single system of dharma can formulate all systems of dharma, and only those who can understand the meaning [of this paradox] may use such terms. It makes no difference to those who have realized the essence of mind whether they formulate all systems of dharma or dispense with all of them.

They are at liberty to come or to go. They are free from obstacles
or impediments. They take appropriate actions as circumstances
require. They give suitable answers according to the temperament
of the inquirer.






Hui-neng, Dogen and Eckhart: arguably the greatest Chinese Ch'an master, the greatest Japanese Zen master, and the greatest medieval Christian mystical writer. They are so elevated in our pantheon of religious heroes that we are apt to overlook how opportunistic -- indeed, how completely unscrupulous--they were in the ways they employed language.





Hui-neng's opportunism is obvious in the two passages from his Platform Sutra already quoted above. His own words provide some excellent instances of language "free from obstacles or impediments", of teachings that "give suitable answers according to the temperament of the inquirer." To cite only one example, in one place the sixth patriarch does not hesitate to contradict received Buddhist teachings, in response to the question of a monk, Chang Hsing-ch'ang, who could not understand the meaning of the terms "eternal" and "not eternal" in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

"What is not eternal is the buddha-nature," replied the patriarch,
"and what is eternal is the discriminating mind together with all
meritorious and demeritorious dharmas."

"Your explanation, sir, contradicts the sutra," said Chang.

"I dare not, since I inherit the heart seal of Lord Buddha.... If
buddha- nature is eternal, it would be of no use to talk about
meritorious and demeritorious dharmas; and until the end of a
kalpa no one would arouse the bodhicitta. Therefore, when I say
'not eternal' it is exactly what Lord Buddha meant for 'eternal.'
Again, if all dharmas are not eternal, then every thing or object
would have a nature of its own [i.e., self-existence or essence]
to suffer death and birth. In that case, it would mean that the
essence of mind, which is truly eternal, does not pervade
everywhere. Therefore when I say 'eternal' it is exactly what Lord
Buddha meant by 'not eternal.'... In following slavishly the
wording of the sutra, you have ignored the spirit of the text."






In his final instructions to his successors before passing away, Hui-neng taught more about how to teach: " Whenever a man puts a question to you, answer him in antonyms, so that a pair of opposites will be formed, such as coming and going. When the interdependence of the two is entirely done away with there would be, in the absolute sense, neither coming nor going." If someone is fixated on one view, challenge him with the opposite view -- not to convert him to that view but to unsettle him from all views, so that one might slip out between them.





Language and symbols circumscribe; but, as living forces, they are dynamic enough to open up, constantly re-expressing, renewing, and casting-off, so as to unfold new horizons of their own life. In this way language and symbols know no limits with respect to how far they can penetrate both conceptually and symbolically. No Buddhist thinker was more intensely and meticulously involved with the exploration of each and every linguistic possibility of Buddhist concepts and symbols -- even those forgotten, displaced ones -- than Dogen who endeavored to appropriate them in the dynamic workings of the Way's realization. (Hee-jin Kim)





To Dogen the manner of expression is as important as the substance of thought; in fact, the experimentation with language is equivalent to the making of reality. Furthermore, Dogen frequently puts forth deliberate, often brilliant, "misinterpretations" of certain notions and passages of Buddhism. This distortion of original meaning is not due to any ignorance of Chinese or Japanese (indeed, it testifies to a unique mastery of both) but rather to a different kind of thinking -- the logic of the Buddha-dharma. (Kim)





Among the many examples which may be cited, here are some of the most interesting: Dogen's discussion of to-higan ("reaching the other shore") transposes the two characters into higan-to, "the other shore's arrival" or "the other shore has arrived." The transcribed term no longer refers to a future event but emphasizes the event of realization here and now.





Eckhart reads mutuo (reciprocal) as meo tuo et tuo meo (mine yours and yours mine). He plays with the name of his own religious order (ordo praedicatorum, order of preachers) to make it an "order of praisers", i.e., those who offer divine predicates. In the Vulgate version of Romans 6:22, Nun vero liberati a peccato ("Now, however, you have been liberated from sin'"), Eckhart discovers eight different grammatical functions in vero, including: truly (vere) delivered from sin; delivered from sin by truth (vero, the datum of verum), and so forth. At the beginning of the Gospel of John, In principio erat verbum, the words principium, erat and verbum are submitted to similar readings, multiplying and disseminating their meanings. Perhaps the most shocking of all, Eckhart presumes to change the opening lines of the Pater Noster (believed to be the only prayer we have from Jesus) so that "thy will be done" becomes '"will, be thine [i.e.,God's]", because he believed that willing to do God's will is not as good as getting beyond willing altogether.





Perhaps the most significant instance of Eckhart's unscrupulous use of language is the way he plays with the binary terms Being and Nonbeing (or Nothing) by nonchalantly reversing their meaning. Sometimes he refers to the being of creatures and describes God as a nothing, without the slightest bit of existence. At other times he contrasts the "nullity" of all creatures with the being of God, in which case it is not that God has being, or even that God is being, but that being is God (esse est deus). Caputo says that Eckhart "understands quite well that the terms 'Being' and 'Nothing' are functions of each other, that each is inscribed in the other, marked and traced by the other, and that neither gets the job done, alone or together." (p. 31) Well put, yet Eckhart, like Dogen, plays with syntax and semantics not just to tease out ever new senses, not just to see how many meanings he can make dance on the head of a pin, but to develop some special types of expression, particularly those which can help us to see through the duality between ourselves and God. In the Bussho fascicle Dogen reorders syntax to make "All beings have Buddha-nature" into "All beings are Buddha- nature"; Eckhart is happy to reverse the referents of Being and Nothingness to the same end, without ever asserting that both God and creatures have being, for that would involve a dualism between the two: if God is nothing it is be

[edit on 11-3-2009 by DangerDeath]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren

I'm very happy that the concept of The Power Of Now is resonating with you, but "pioneering ideology" it is definitely not. You are forgetting centuries of ancient Asian teachings. It is at best.

But look, as long as it helps you more power to E.T. This is not sarcasm!


You do have a point here, however in the form E Tolle has put it in it has become more accessable to the main stream, so in this way it could be seen as pioneering.

What I like about The Power of Now is that it has no leader, no head guy or figure head. It is just your own inner awarness and inner peace. Simple but brilliant . Once we reach this inner peace we see how complete and perfect we have been from birth and realize we need no other figure head , no guru and definatly no cult.

Some may find this threatening, frightening or just something they are unable to face at this time. Some (and Ive been guilty for sure!!) feel they need a person to look to for guidance, a figure head, a teacher but this for me is just an added confusion. Once we live in our now, once we embrace our true moment of living we see there is nothing else, all we have is our now.

This i hope will stop me from ever being Guru'ed again! I have never done anything in my past or future, everything Ive ever done was in my now. I know some have other ideas and I respect them, but for me at this moment in my life, this concept and awarness works for me. what ever you say about it, it sure has to be an improvment on my previous belief.

So what if it does have echos of Taoism/Buddhism . If its presented in a way millions can understand what is the problem?

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Mr Green]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Green
 


As I've said: I'm happy that Tolle's books are helping you. Nothing wrong there. I just wanted to point out that knowing the foundation of a house is not a bad thing. Sometimes the roof is leaky



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


It'll take me a long time to digest it all. Very interesting



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


Of course.
Here's one haiku I wrote recently. I started to write with haiku form, and soon realized that "traditional" haiku belonged to the "tradition", not to the poetry


Nevertheless, it took me more than 30 years to really understand...



Winter haiku

Oak tree deep in fog
From bough to bough
Crackles snow



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


When one points the finger of accusation ("you're confused, dear friend"), it certainly applies to them, first, more readily.

That's a philosophical 'truism' quite well recognized by all.

My 'keen' insight picked you're 'ruthless' abusive nature out rather finely, yes? In the guise of decency, you've set to slander with abusive modalities of reference toward me.

I, in turn, elucidate the points that philosophy or religion can be embraced by any and all, and become quite respected in their fields, even worshipped. More, later.

You are a low sort, keenly intuited at the first.

Absolutism doesn't exist, only the pseudo perception of such.

So, I speak of absolutisms when I say, "there is no solid matter in the universe, only foucused force(s)." That, to your philosophical understanding is perceived as absolutism. Yes, I clearly see how you would Red Falg that Truth, twist it about, insult because you are defending against a superior truth, and dissemble over the matter with your insufficient philosopical comprehension, something mankind has been prone to do, the results of which are readily perceived here Now.

Let us have a few others comment on the above paragraph, rather than a friendly-insultive, absusive dissembler of truths.

(PS - you also accused me of being the most cultish on the thread: "there is no solid matter." So grounded in philosphy.)

The way you have been behaving toward me, is exactly Paul Richards-like. Two peas in a pod, perhaps. I encountered him on another thread.

I expect no other person to believe anything I say, regardless of the source; anyone on ats can confirm that. Because knowledge needs be passed, one from the other, I hardly think the effort of conveying knowledge of the subtle, the Invisible, the immaterial, which came from a source centered in the non-local universe, is any different than any other poster on ats trying to share knowledge.

I say religion and philosphy are good to a point; at a given point, one must be ready and able to break from their grips, for the experiencing of the living universe does not carry limitations with it. My Cup is on Empty.

I see, your's is on Ego. And kindly don't 'friend' me: I know an adamantine-rigid viewpoint when I perceive one: yours. I bruised your cargo, now you must resettle it to fit the spaces provided; understandable.

I never said you, nor anyone, need believe me. I think you might check the fore and rear view mirror, lest you fail to see the monstrous visage you are casting upon others who slight your philosophy.

Two wings of Mind, or Two wings of Soul, or Two halves of the brain/mind. More confusion: some who know a bit more than yourself commonly call it Duality. Of course, you have conquered this, yes? Your physical body is missing, transcended via dharma, yes? Nothing but the real you here-now, yes?

Not only is there One, Duality/Polarity, but Integration of the two in one. "Sorry, I'm confused sayeth the philosopher." Do spare me. You talk, I talk. The masses will back you: that should be evidence of who's what; yes? Something about the masses and popular/accepted beliefs....?

[edit on 11-3-2009 by SS,Naga]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SS,Naga
 


Dear SS, Naga

Thank you for clearing up any doubts I had about your state of mind.

All the best.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


No problem. I had no doubts about yours, from the first.


[edit on 11-3-2009 by SS,Naga]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
God damn it boys!

You've chased away the girls


[edit on 11-3-2009 by DangerDeath]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


Then let's bring 'em back.

Everyone likes to use their heads, but sometimes issues become confused, muddied. Here you go everybody: I expressed my views that neither religion (dogma) nor reason (philosophy) were of use in the end result, where it reaches a point that they must be put away to achieve a synthesis of Wisdom (whatever that is?):

I was immediately engaged in an ad-hominem attack by said party, which any may view by going over the last two pages, and perceiving themselves the Truth of this: attack on character, belitting remarks and statements about my 'state of consciousness,' by one who is obviously using the ad-hominem as a 'sweet' method of assassination of my statements' validity:


Not a stupid question at all. an Ad Hominem is a fallicy of logic often used in attacks on the poster rather than the topic of discussion. Its often used when one is no longer able to defend your position or Thesis:

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
www.nizkor.org

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anybody with a mind and conceptual ability can perceive this. It was done subtly, like a successful ad hominem attack should be (I've never engaged in one, though I have fought for the validity of my statements endlessly: there is no right or wrong, but there is relative validity).

So, now that the true character of the one accusing myself has been revealed to be precisely the reverse, we can proceed. Mind, I had a right to defend myself, nor do I permit injustice to be levelled against me without response. I pointed out clearly that it was of low character to attack me in the manner he did, defended myself, and he continued with the ad hominem attack. Another member here (saying no names) attempted to support this type of belittlement, due to the nature of my viewpoint on religion and philosophy.

So, though I have studied religion and philosophy (58), spending endless hours in libraries across america (17 states) and my own considerable library, I no longer care to indulge in those hopeless delights, preferring the synthesis of direct-connecting. Nor do I belittle others who must believe in something (cults), and learn some knowledge, for without these, the reverse (integration) cannot be seen or known. End of message.

I withdraw, unless attacked further. I will leave you all to your cult of Now.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by SS,Naga]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath
God damn it boys!

You've chased away the girls


[edit on 11-3-2009 by DangerDeath]


You mean Mr. Green is not a boy


All the best.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
A "warrior" is never besieged.

Simply because he has discarded everything and has no possessions to be threatened.

To put words into Tolle's mouth (for we are the source to each other):

The only "advancement" "towards" the Knowledge or Truth is by stripping off delusions and lies.

The Knowledge or Truth never ever departed from here and now.

This is why "future and past" are the Denial.
Life is denial.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SS,Naga
 





I withdraw, unless attacked further. I will leave you all to your cult of Now.


The "your cult of Now"


You've knocked yourself down!
Counting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...

Still have a chance to wake up



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
www.cnn.com...




Man survives plunge over Niagara Falls





Smith said the unidentified man was in the near-freezing water for "40-plus" minutes before he was rescued by Niagara Parks Police and Niagara Falls firefighter Todd Brunning.


Ha!
Some people survive "40-plus" years in this condition



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SS,Naga
I will leave you all to your cult of Now.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by SS,Naga]


Oohh don’t you just hate that. I did a long reply to you then as I pressed post and at that precise moment I lost internet connection, my whole reply lost.!! Sometimes I think computers are a cult ! It has taken me an hour of boring phone calls to put it right, and sure enough it was there fault! IPs are a cult!


Naga!!! I can not accept that living in the now is a cult. Im sure deep down you dont think that either.

If by being aware in my now it means I am able to wake up in my own self, have my own ideas and thoughts and not the thoughts of another forced upon me, if it means I have my own name, identity and life, if it means I do not have to lie to my family and friends, and if by living in the now it means I can close my eyes without some spooky discarnate being there, having my energy and charkas hijacked or some astral entity attacking me or living constantly in some projected fear driven future then yes I will always choose the now!

Below is an excerpt from The Power of Now.


Have you ever experienced, done , thought, or felt anything out-side of your now? Do you ever think you will? Is it possible for anything to happen or be outside of the Now? The answer is obvious, it is it not?

Nothing ever happened in the past; it happened in the Now.
Nothing will ever happen in the future: it will happen in the Now.

What you think of as the past is a memory trace, stored in the mind, of a former Now. When you remember the past, you reactivate a memory trace- and you do it in the now. The future is an imagined Now, a projection of the mind. When the future comes , it comes as the Now.


Now there is obviously an issue with yourself and the quote above “ have you ever felt anything outside of your now?” and for you Naga it seems you have. Now I have no explanation for this, but it is a reality only you have been shown, not I. I respect your views very much, I like reading your posts, you push back my boundaries of understanding and you make me think. However for me your reality is not mine, I have accepted my own and I am happy. With my past record I now find it best I follow my own inner truth and for me at this moment in time, that is being aware of my now. I have found it dangerous to try and follow another’s reality because it is theirs and not mine.

So I totally disagree with you that being aware of our conscious being in its Now is a cult. I had a lot more to say to you but it has become lost in the ethers of the internet!

To the one that said beware E Tolles teachings have a leaky roof. Well Im not sure what you mean, but for me a leaky roof is far better than no roof at all.

This thread is about cults and you have said by living in our now we are members of a cult. How can this possibly be? All we have is our now, are you saying our entire life is a cult to some 4 headed beast? I don’t know seems some people in here are never happy. I find the courage to get out of a manipulative and dangerous cult by embracing my true presence in its now only to be told Im in another cult. Really Naga I do wonder about you sometimes!!




[edit on 12-3-2009 by Mr Green]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   
It becomes a cult once it reaches the stage where you have to think a certain way to belong. I have many friends who I discuss conspiracies and ETs etc with, but although we share many beliefs, there are always parts we disagree on, but we still respect and listen to each other's opinions.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join