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.

 

The Point of Jesus

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


When you say that you 'quote' strongly object to an over-zealous syncretism, where basically incompatible positions are homogenized into fitting with each other, i feel you understand me as much as i understand you!!!
If you feel that my statement about not being able to describe the color red to a blind man patronizing, i am sorry it is just a statement to explain the difficultly i am having explaining anything. Nothing can be explained with words.
I find your posts very challenging indeed. All the big words that you use, even spell check doesn't recognize them. You are too clever.




posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote to bogomil:


I find your posts very challenging indeed. All the big words that you use, even spell check doesn't recognize them. You are too clever.


Why not consider it an opportunity to learn new words? I know I need to check the dictionary at least once when reading one of bogomil's longer posts.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


Yeah, i'm learning new words. However, i try not to use them in conversation as i find it alienates others and myself also. My mission is always to be as clear as i possibly can. I find it hard work reading some posts, and i would not want to inflict this on others.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Generally:

In spite of a short obligatory course in philosophy at university, I'm in no way a formal philosophy expert. What I know and use in that direction and the language associated with it, is something inside the grasp of any person with average intelligence and a will to learn. That's how I have aquired much of the lingo I use, and I have often had to look up words and meanings of positions myself. I probably make mistakes on the way and must relearn.

To repeat a metaphor I've used before. If people for some reasons, beyond colour and prestanda, want to talk more detailed about cars, it's useless to refer to all the components of a car as 'thingumajics'. Car-lingo is as complex and sophisticated as any other lingo, and using it or not, depends on whether you e.g. want to buy a car, because it has a nice red colour or because you want a certain standard of quality you can examine critically.

Choosing a religion (or a similar ideology) is IMO more important than just buying a car; it would be rather stupid to 'buy' it on appearances alone. And the need and obligation for a quality analysis is even greater, when a person takes it upon him/herself to 'push' a religion (or ideology) on others.

I have ofcourse no objections to anyone saying: "I just like this for no rational reasons whatsoever, so leave me alone".

It's when individuals or groups without rational reasons for their choice, forget that the "leave me alone" includes everyone, and become missionaries...then I start to make my own protesting noises.
edit on 5-4-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


When you say that you 'quote' strongly object to an over-zealous syncretism, where basically incompatible positions are homogenized into fitting with each other, i feel you understand me as much as i understand you!!!
If you feel that my statement about not being able to describe the color red to a blind man patronizing, i am sorry it is just a statement to explain the difficultly i am having explaining anything. Nothing can be explained with words.
I find your posts very challenging indeed. All the big words that you use, even spell check doesn't recognize them. You are too clever.


Adding a quote from a later post:

["My mission is always to be as clear as i possibly can."]

It can be debated if clarity is acchieved by referring to 'that thingumajig on the bigger thingumajic for whusissname' in a broad non-specialist language.

In such a version of langauge it's not surprising, that Buddha and Jesus can emerge as practically ideological twins, manifested in this (over-constructed) sentence:

"There is only one true 'god' and his prophet is Budhha". An example which is somewhat overdone, but actually do contain the essence of what I call mish-mash syncretism. By semantic twists, disregarding the real content and doctrines of different religions, christianity, Islam and buddhism are just expressions of the one, true 'reality' (your version of 'reality'), where prophets etc 'point the same way'.


An example: Genesis 1:1-3, the starting-point of the bible, is a description of a creator-god being the originator of a dualistic creation. Pauline christians furthermore point out, that this 'god' already at that point has two aspects...'god' and his 'spirit', which later in NT is increased to three parts, when Jesus is included. And as you yourself use the pauline concept of sin here.....

(Quote earlier post page 4: ["We need to forgive our own sins first."]

....it's reasonable to assume, that you refer to the pauline 'god'-version, as pauline christianity is THE exponent of the 'sin'-concept.

I.e. a 'god' consisting of different aspects (being intrinsically dualistic), and creating a dualistic universe.

On the other hand, your ATS name and some of your posts refer to 'the eternal now'. And ideal found in transcendent non-dualistic connections.

To acchieve the non-dualistic transcendence of 'the eternal now', you would, according to your own writings so far, have to transcend the bible-'god' and Jesus also, as they are dualistic phenomena.

So which way do you want it?

(PS Quote: ["Nothing can be explained with words."]

I do not agree completely with this, but in any case we're both using words, so on your part, what are your motives for writing then?)

edit on 5-4-2011 by bogomil because: spelling and clarification



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I do not know what NT is, i also need to know what pauline is, because i am totally lost. Please help me to understand.

The eternal now does not have to be achieved, that's just silly. It's complete madness to think that now has to be achieved. It is eternally now. All that is required is the noticing of it.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


I do not know what NT is, i also need to know what pauline is, because i am totally lost. Please help me to understand.

The eternal now does not have to be achieved, that's just silly. It's complete madness to think that now has to be achieved. It is eternally now. All that is required is the noticing of it.


NT is 'New Testament' and pauline christianity is that version of the alleged teachings of Jesus which Paul (or Paulus) presented.

'Noticing' is also an achievement; there's actually a whole subset of buddhism (mahayana), which has turned a lot of attention to this 'noticing' and arrived to one of the most fascinating small existential 'equations' I know of:

Samsara (illusion) = Nirvana.

But as simple as it sounds, 'noticing' this is more difficult than just snapping your fingers. Otherwise there would be more people doing it, because many try. Actually I've only met a few individuals (in spite of searching for them), who possibly could have said to do this more than occasionally and spontaneously.

I've met people, who on some occasions have experienced the eternal now, and ofcourse an abundance of claimants, who apparantly imagine they have.
edit on 5-4-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


That's right 'noticing' is more difficult than it sounds, near on impossible for most. Even the idea of noticing this eternal now seems hard to comprehend. However, when this ever present nowness is really seen/felt, this is when everything changes. Something new, but familiar is experienced, a complete wholeness that feels like home.
The presence is felt. When this is first experienced it is quite a shock, mind blowing (literally), so much so that it leaves one with a need to understand what has happened. The search is on to find others, or explanations. The religions are pointing to this eternal now that you are (Jesus and Buddha were pointing), unfortunately not just then but now it is hard to put into words.
There are many people talking about this eternal now, and many consciously living it.
There is no other time than now, so it is impossible to be outside of now.
It really is an insane world when the now is missed.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Samsara (illusion) = Nirvana. I would have to disagree with this equation. Firstly samsara does not mean illusion. And also illusion does not equate to nirvana. Illusion leads to confusion. Nirvana is the freedom from illusion.
Also the equation in and of itself is, i think, a circular argument.
edit on 6-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


That's right 'noticing' is more difficult than it sounds, near on impossible for most. Even the idea of noticing this eternal now seems hard to comprehend. However, when this ever present nowness is really seen/felt, this is when everything changes. Something new, but familiar is experienced, a complete wholeness that feels like home.
The presence is felt. When this is first experienced it is quite a shock, mind blowing (literally), so much so that it leaves one with a need to understand what has happened. The search is on to find others, or explanations. The religions are pointing to this eternal now that you are (Jesus and Buddha were pointing), unfortunately not just then but now it is hard to put into words.
There are many people talking about this eternal now, and many consciously living it.
There is no other time than now, so it is impossible to be outside of now.
It really is an insane world when the now is missed.


I'm experientally familiar with what you describe.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


Samsara (illusion) = Nirvana. I would have to disagree with this equation. Firstly samsara does not mean illusion. And also illusion does not equate to nirvana. Illusion leads to confusion. Nirvana is the freedom from illusion.
Also the equation in and of itself is, i think, a circular argument.
edit on 6-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Samsara means the manifested dynamics resulting from dualistic perception of existence. From the perspective of ideological non-dualism with non-dualism as 'reality', samsara is then 'illusion'.

Samsara = Nirvana is, as I said, part of Mahayana buddhism. If there are any disagreements on what Mahayana buddhism encompasses, I can retract my statement and refer only to tibetan buddhism.

In his book on 'Dzogchen' * Dalia Lama describes Samsara and Nirvana as 'inseparable'.

In 'Mahamudra' ** there is following passage on introspective meditative observation of the 'mind' (awareness, consciousness) on the points of 'tranquility' (non-dualism, Nirvana) and 'movement' (samsaric dynamics).

" The (....meditator, my insert) is not likely to find such a differentiable nature".

I do not refer to the Samsara = Nirvana 'equation' as a personal absolute, but as a fascinating perspective with far-reaching consequences on the subject of existence as an expression of consciousness. In Hinayana buddhism, there is an alternative model of this.

Getting back to topic, .....you present a 'Jesus' apparantly taken from pauline christianity and to some extent compare him to Buddha....from a level of outwards appearance, based on the similarity of a 'bhakti' (love, compassion) message.

Similarity isn't the same as being identical.

If 'being identica'l is postulated, many religionists use this as a justification for dragging various doctrinal points with them into their constructed syncretism of different religions. This is a completely invalid method (an analysis on this 'method' per se can be found on the subjects of 'deductive logic and inductive reasoning').

I have already demonstrated the basic differences between a pauline bible-'god'-Jesus model and the non-dualistic 'eternal now' model. You can choose to ignore my points, or relate to them. Your choice.

If you choose to relate to my points, the Jesus you present needs some adaption to fit with a non-dualistic model, and a certain amount of 'burden of proof' rests on you.

For good or bad, the pauline bible-'god'-Jesus has it's own platform/position and changes need some evidence.

Quote: ["Also the equation in and of itself is, i think, a circular argument."]

It's possible to use methods of independent examination on it (as in the example from Mahamudra). But as I said, it's not an absolute of mine. It's a useful perspective.

* Dalai Lama: 'Dzogchen', 2000, The Tertön Sogyal Trust

** Mahamudra, 2006, Wisdom publications, p. 206.

edit on 6-4-2011 by bogomil because: spelling and addition



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I've known people that have experienced "Nirvana"... It changed them completely, almost instantaniously.

Myself im not sure i've experienced it, though two of my "experiences" with God that i've mentioned did have to do with meditation.




posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


As with anything so uncertain and susceptible to subjective interpretations and feed-back effects as non-mundane experiences, it's not surprising, that even the systems using e.g. meditation and associated with a basically 'asian' position have somewhat different outcomes.

In buddhism it's sometimes debated, if Nirvana is 'silence' or 'emptiness', which implies much more both in theory and practise, than these two words immediately suggest.

I have also heard claims of there being different 'levels' of Nirvana.

The 'god' concept in buddhism mainly refers to a group of beings, which still are part of samsaric existence, though at a very comfortable level. I'm not familiar with any 'primal source' system, except ofcourse 'the mind' or awareness, where it actually touches on 'I AM, that I AM'.

But then anybody can claim to 'I am, that I am', because there's no reference point to its meaning.

In a broader context I know, that my stance can be seen as so 'relativistic' as to be useless. I hope to get around to why this is not the case.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Have you practiced meditation?




posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


All of these words (samsara, nirvana) and people (Buddha, Jesus,Dali Lama) have been trying to tell us something for thousands of years, a message, to set us free from suffering. Until known it will not be known.
Have you had an awakening?



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil
 


Have you practiced meditation?



Yes



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


All of these words (samsara, nirvana) and people (Buddha, Jesus,Dali Lama) have been trying to tell us something for thousands of years, a message, to set us free from suffering. Until known it will not be known.
Have you had an awakening?


It has not necessarily been the same message.

On 'awakening': I believe, I already have given enough information on my 'competence' concerning trans-mundane experience. But I can add some background from many years as a Gurdjieff student, where 'awakening' was a central point. I did as well as could be expected.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



I did as well as could be expected.


I love this answer. It says everything without saying anything.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by bogomil
 



I did as well as could be expected.


I love this answer. It says everything without saying anything.


Thanks.

To be quite honest I'm not quite certain myself, what (if any) extended meaning this has. It was more written on the background of, that these 'mind-paths' you open (e.g. through initiations and similar) only have themselves as reference-points....

.......so I try to avoid the dangers of 'holier than you' coming from communication taking place from platforms, which look similar, but in reality are different.

"Are you really awake'er than me, and in the proper way?"


&&&&&&&*


The new-age and general-evangelist inductive-category curse: "This cloud looks like an angel. 'God' must for sure exist", conveniently skipping 2-3.000 years of deductive and epistemological examinations.

As Hagbard Celine said: "Communication is only possible between equals".

* The &&s represent some dozen pages bridging the paragraphs above to the one below, which I'm to lazy to write now. I'm not enigmatic on purpose. That is, for now.. But not the eternal now though.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 

Awakening is not an achievement, and it can not be taught, although there are many 'teachers'. There are many who have awakened and speak of it, but it just happens, or it doesn't. To teach someone to be in the now is impossible, it has to be seen for oneself. It is always now, but somehow noticing this and living consciously within now is really illusive for humans.
Humans have a brain, mind, thoughts(all the same thing) and mind is dualistic. It seems to have more than one opinion, always coming up with more than one answer to any question that is presented. This makes humans work in opposites, past/future, right/wrong, good/bad. We can never seem to see the middle ground. This is because we have invested so much importance on our minds, we think using our brains makes us intelligent, we think logic and reason rule. Because we place so much importance on our thoughts (we believe what they say), they lead us a merry dance of fear, anxiety, guilt and hope.
The intelligence that is inherent in everything is also the basis of us, it is also the basis of the mind, prior to the mind. Mind can only exist within consciousness. Consciousness is primary.
If we could see that the mind (with its one thought at a time) can actually be watched, seen the same as any other object, like a chair or a cloud just passing by/through. But what is seeing that thought, what is is passing through?
The things that are seen appear to something, but not a something more like not a thing. The not a thing is what we are. We are nothing. That is far to frightening for the average human, to discover that you are nothing. The mind that thinks it is clever will not accept this, and will fight tooth and nail to survive.
You quite literally have to lose your mind to become liberated. This is why not many walk this road.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join