Kabbalah and the Narrow Way - Wall of Pride or Gate of Freedom?

Kabbalah is the mystical side of Jewish religion. Moses was said to have received the written Torah on Mt. Siani as well as the unwritten Torah. The unwritten version was supposed to be passed down from mouth to ear and only shared with the elect. It is an attempt to recreate the experiences of the early Jewish mystics such as Elijah and Ezekiel.

This is the esoteric (intrinsic) side of religion. The church is the exoteric (extrinsic). Faith is both of these for sure. We have our spiritual life on the inside as God speaks to us in the still small voice of the subconscious. He also speaks to us from the events of the world around us. Jesus gave us the key to understanding this. Truth is not found in either place.

You will not find truth in the dogmas of the church or in the practices of religion. These are symbols that lead us to realization of truth only. You won't find truth in the extremes of spirituality either. The path to truth is the narrow path. It is the path between the material church and the inner court of the heart. Go too far into either and you stray from the path.

Matthew 7:13
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

The church was built upon Peter. Peter let Jesus down, only to return. Peter was called the rock that the church would be built upon. The rock was rolled away as you recall. The church will be rolled away as well to reveal Christ in the last day. John was the esoteric church of the Gnostics. Again, he was the much beloved of Jesus. This was the mystical side of gnosis. Gnosis is spiritual understanding.

Matthew 16

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

You can see Jesus attitude toward the future of the church here. The church becomes a stumbling block in history by chasing the material concerns of the world.

Each of these two churches strayed too far into their respective beliefs. This is a pendulum swing. Each of us who believe will swing from one to the other in life. Material to spiritual. We arrive in the middle at the gates of the narrow way. It is a balance of both to achieve true mastery over truth.

Kabbalah is the swing of the pendulum to the extreme of spirituality. This is why the new age movement is embracing it. For the believer, the swing of the pendulum balances at love for others.

For the non-believer there is no swing of this pendulum toward truth. The non-believer can only swing from fear of the material word to self-pride and false inner confidence. This is the same swing: outer to inner. When a skeptic arrives at the balance point between, it becomes a false self-confidence based on bias against the church and other people in the world. A person can only love themselves if they suffer the disease of pride. It is a wall of protection instead of a door of freedom.

Freedom only comes from equality and justice according to law. Pride only protects the individual. Humanism is a grasping of this pride in selfish ambition. We see the news stories of conspiracies on ATS as a result of this selfish pride.

There is only one source that can provide the solution to this problem. The narrow way of Christ in loving-kindnesses toward others. God is one of the others.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


The Kabbalah all those Madonna's are embracing is not the real Kabbalah; you have to study Torah for many years before going in to the works of Kabbalah or you will go literally mad.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


This is the fourth or fifth 'perspective' (subject/method) you have annexed in as many threads, where the same and identical posts from you turn up.

And each time you 'adapt' the annexed material (sometimes to an unreasonable degree, based on a subjective, but undefined system of your own), so it will fit to your pre-determined answer as alleged 'proof' of this answer.

This procedure is completely subjective, and the claimed associations between the various components you have annexed (hijacked) takes place in your mindset, without any further explanations that "it is true, because it is true".

It's possible, that this has to start from square one (once more), with attention directed at the differences between subjective and objective positions. An attention leading either to simplistic faith-based postulates or to an epistemological overview.

Or it's possible, that we can go straight to a pragmatic approach, where there do exist verified examples invalidating your claims (insofar mainly non-scientific observations can be said to be 'verified').

I agree. I think the Madonna version is Quaballah. Jewish Mysticism is the blinders of their faith. If you go back to Romans 11, you see the reason for this.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

The church is grafted into the tree and allowed time to grow and produce fruit. Then the Hebrews have their eyes opened to Christ and they are put back into the tree as well. Kabbalah, in my opinion, is part of this blinding. Even the Church and its dogma and material wealth is a blinding of those who embrace such things. The narrow path is between these two (spirit and material) in the reality of love for others. If we want to see truth, we need to embrace those who showed it in their walk on earth. Christ is that love personified. He is the way, the truth and the life.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

The Kabbalah all those Madonna's are embracing is not the real Kabbalah; you have to study Torah for many years before going in to the works of Kabbalah or you will go literally mad.

No. Truth is narrow. Love is the entire point. All views around truth point back to the same center point of love. Any philosophy of men or belief system can only point back to the author of the true perspective. Christ is at the center of all perspectives. I can only point that direction. The world is a stage of ideas and beliefs that spin around one truth of love for God and love of others. Truth is never separate form virtue. All virtue is defined by love for God and others. Pride is the opposite that creates the other beliefs and especially non-belief in God.

The entire bible is commentary on this: Love your neighbor as yourself. God is your neighbor as well. This includes your enemies.

Bias is the flaming sword. Love is the sword of truth.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

This is the fourth or fifth 'perspective' (subject/method) you have annexed in as many threads, where the same and identical posts from you turn up.

And each time you 'adapt' the annexed material (sometimes to an unreasonable degree, based on a subjective, but undefined system of your own), so it will fit to your pre-determined answer as alleged 'proof' of this answer.

This procedure is completely subjective, and the claimed associations between the various components you have annexed (hijacked) takes place in your mindset, without any further explanations that "it is true, because it is true".

It's possible, that this has to start from square one (once more), with attention directed at the differences between subjective and objective positions. An attention leading either to simplistic faith-based postulates or to an epistemological overview.

Or it's possible, that we can go straight to a pragmatic approach, where there do exist verified examples invalidating your claims (insofar mainly non-scientific observations can be said to be 'verified').

Since you find it necessary to follow me around ATS, looking to discredit God, then start with the idea of love and hate. Work your way out from this point. Love stands for those who express the same. Hate stands against anyone who is not (Self). Hate can only stand with those who hate. Love has no company with hate. Either we stand for something of value like virtue, or we stand against everything for selfish interests.

How do you view love and hate? Define them as I have just done. Provide examples. Give the humanist viewpoint. Give a liberal worldview and give examples of where these truths originate. Let's start here with our objectiveness. Then, we can work out to any topic you like. Our starting point here will define the rest.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

This is the fourth or fifth 'perspective' (subject/method) you have annexed in as many threads, where the same and identical posts from you turn up.

And each time you 'adapt' the annexed material (sometimes to an unreasonable degree, based on a subjective, but undefined system of your own), so it will fit to your pre-determined answer as alleged 'proof' of this answer.

This procedure is completely subjective, and the claimed associations between the various components you have annexed (hijacked) takes place in your mindset, without any further explanations that "it is true, because it is true".

It's possible, that this has to start from square one (once more), with attention directed at the differences between subjective and objective positions. An attention leading either to simplistic faith-based postulates or to an epistemological overview.

Or it's possible, that we can go straight to a pragmatic approach, where there do exist verified examples invalidating your claims (insofar mainly non-scientific observations can be said to be 'verified').

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["No. Truth is narrow. Love is the entire point. All views around truth point back to the same center point of love. Any philosophy of men or belief system can only point back to the author of the true perspective."]

For you it is, based on the way you pre-arrange details and scenario in your mind. (Which everybody ofcourse can do legitimately and also talk about).

Quote: ["Christ is at the center of all perspectives."]

And where you ofcourse also must be prepared to meet considerable opposition, when your subjective claims are postulated to be 'absolutes', and when your posts turn into sermons with repetitive doctrinal propaganda.

Quote: ["I can only point that direction."]

There's 'pointing', and then there's 'pointing'.

Quote: ["The world is a stage of ideas and beliefs that spin around one truth of love for God and love of others."]

YOUR world. Your self-proclaimed role as a representative of 'absolute truths' (or sometimes as a spokesman for a vituous mankind) needs more than your own insistence on these claims.

Quote: ["Truth is never separate form virtue. All virtue is defined by love for God and others. Pride is the opposite that creates the other beliefs and especially non-belief in God."]

(I'll momentarily use your own argumentation-form of postulates): Wrong.

Quote: [" The entire bible is commentary on this: Love your neighbor as yourself. God is your neighbor as well. This includes your enemies."]

Apparantly you read and interpretate the bible extremely selectively, so as to arrive at your pre-determined answer.

Quote: ["Bias is the flaming sword. Love is the sword of truth."]

Nice slogans.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["Since you find it necessary to follow me around ATS, looking to discredit God,...."]

I'm all over the religion-associated forums, responding to a lot of threads; you happen to be there also in contexts interesting me.

Quote continued: [" then start with the idea of love and hate."]

As general concepts...yes. Concerning my own character love/grumpiness would be more to the point.

Quote: ["Work your way out from this point. Love stands for those who express the same."]

Working MY way from this point lasted a few seconds, until you took over the 'working of ways' on my behalf.

Quote: ["Either we stand for something of value like virtue,"]

Yes..."something of value like virtue", but not necessarily taking your versions, conditions or premises on it.

Quote: ["How do you view love and hate?"]

It's usually a mix of selfish motives and altruistic ideals, where I personally refer to utilitarian morality in the idealist department. I have some empathy and compassion concerning sentient life, and I know it 'could be me tomorrow' needing help, so I don't need to think twice about it, giving help today myself.

On my part it's rather rational and un-emotionally, as I don't believe, that those needing practical help generally are moral philosophers who care about motives, as long as they get help. As to giving emotional help, this has never been much of a talent in me, so I leave that to those competent.

Quote: ["Give a liberal worldview and give examples of where these truths originate."]

'Live and let live' as a starter, adding constructive help on a basis of reciprocial 'social insurance'. It's pragmatic, it functions and it helps to create a relatively sane society.

Quote: ["Let's start here with our objectiveness."]

As a part of considerations of 'ethics' love etc' or on general lines of objectivity as a concept (e.g. also being a part of a social communication-process apart from the truth/reality-seeking methodology).

Quote: ["Then, we can work out to any topic you like. Our starting point here will define the rest."]

I appreciate your new dialogue-form of communication. I hope, we together can keep it there.

And PS. Be it far from me to play 'moderator'. I enjoy this development in the communication, but it's a bit removed from the topic of the thread, and while I have nothing against this, it could annoy others.

Unless you can stand somewhere apart form ALL the philosophers of antiquity, virtue is the defining factor of truth. Check any philosopher you wish, they all describe the realtionship of virtue to truth. Love is the key. Christ provides this key. Confucius, in all His many words of wisdom, understood this fact. Buddha, from the platform of enlightenment, understood this fact. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Rumi the Sufi and the rest. The same story. You are standing by yourself here. I am standing, not with these great thinkers, but with the one who is the author of their thoughts. If you wish to call this a scenario in my mind or repetitive propaganda, I say you may want to investigate history or you will be doomed to repeat it. Only one source has ever claimed to be responsible for this truth of love. Our own intellect, when compared to the philosophies of old, bear witness to the accuracy of one word. LOVE is the essence of all that follows or came before.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You wrote:

["No. Truth is narrow. Love is the entire point. All views around truth point back to the same center point of love. Any philosophy of men or belief system can only point back to the author of the true perspective."]

For you it is, based on the way you pre-arrange details and scenario in your mind. (Which everybody ofcourse can do legitimately and also talk about).

Quote: ["Christ is at the center of all perspectives."]

And where you ofcourse also must be prepared to meet considerable opposition, when your subjective claims are postulated to be 'absolutes', and when your posts turn into sermons with repetitive doctrinal propaganda.

Quote: ["I can only point that direction."]

There's 'pointing', and then there's 'pointing'.

Quote: ["The world is a stage of ideas and beliefs that spin around one truth of love for God and love of others."]

YOUR world. Your self-proclaimed role as a representative of 'absolute truths' (or sometimes as a spokesman for a vituous mankind) needs more than your own insistence on these claims.

Quote: ["Truth is never separate form virtue. All virtue is defined by love for God and others. Pride is the opposite that creates the other beliefs and especially non-belief in God."]

(I'll momentarily use your own argumentation-form of postulates): Wrong.

Quote: [" The entire bible is commentary on this: Love your neighbor as yourself. God is your neighbor as well. This includes your enemies."]

Apparantly you read and interpretate the bible extremely selectively, so as to arrive at your pre-determined answer.

Quote: ["Bias is the flaming sword. Love is the sword of truth."]

Nice slogans.

edit on 11-7-2011 by bogomil because: grammar

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["Unless you can stand somewhere apart form ALL the philosophers of antiquity, virtue is the defining factor of truth."]

As it is, I don't need anybody to tell me 'up from down' in life, neither philosophers, politicians or religious preachers. I take inspiration and knowledge, and form my own decissions.

Quote: [" Check any philosopher you wish, they all describe the realtionship of virtue to truth."]

'Virtue' is as subjective a concept as any other part of idealism.

Quote: ["Love is the key."]

Nope.

Quote: ["Christ provides this key. Confucius, in all His many word of wisdom, understood this fact. Buddha, from the platform of enlightenment, understood this fact. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Rumi the Sufi and the rest."]

In completely different contexts, giving the word different meanings. You're creating one of your inductive categories, this time around a single word.

Quote: ["You are standing by yourself here."]

My life and mindset isn't in the same need of authority as you appear to have.

Quote: ["I am standing, not with these great thinkers, but with the one who is the author of their thoughts."]

Buddha and Lao Tse (to add one my favourites) being 'authored' by 'god'. You must be joking.

Quote: ["If you wish to call this a scenario in my mind or repetitive propaganda, I say you may want to investigate history or you will be doomed to repeat it."]

I've 'been there, done that'. You know nothing about me and my background.

Quote: ["Only one source has ever claimed to be responsible for this truth of love."]

You may only be familiar with one 'source'. I know of several other.

Quote: ["Our own intellect, when compared to the philosophies of old,...."]

I have no special intention of "comparing myself to philosophers of old". If you want to, your choice. But you are not a role-model for me, neither are you the spokesperson for mankind's 'correct' direction in life.

Quote: ["bear witness to the accuracy of one word. LOVE is the essence of all that follows or came before."]

Your recent post started so well with dialogue-communication. It would be a communication-mistake to go preachy on me again.

Practically: Shall we cut it down to one post at a time?

reply to post by bogomil

Your recent post started so well with dialogue-communication. It would be a communication-mistake to go preachy on me again. Practically: Shall we cut it down to one post at a time?

From the post above, it sounds to me like you will do just fine by your own efforts. You deny that love is the key to healing the world. How do you see pride as being a gate of freedom for the world?

My View (provide your own apart from quoting mine)

There are two types of pride. As I stated in the title to the post, I say that the narrow way of virtue is the path to freedom. This is ultimately reflected in the assertion by Christ that love is over all else. Self-Pride would be considered the antithesis to love. Love would be the Apotheosis of faith and virtue by the biblical definition. Self-Pride would be the downfall of any civilization. Personal pride in a job well done can only come by suffering for virtue. Taking reward is selfish pride that leads to evil against others.

Pride, as defined in the Bible, is not a feeling of satisfaction of a job well done. Biblical pride is defined in this verse:

Proverbs 8:13 (ESV)

13 The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.

God defines pride as going above His law of love for others. All laws are broken by pride without exception. As I said above, pride for a job well done is not biblical pride. It represents suffering work resulting in lasting reward for others. If the benefit is for others, then the benefit is for the individual producing the work as well.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["You deny that love is the key to healing the world."]

In the context you put it. Yes, I deny it. Some put 'love' in other contexts, which I at least am less critical to.

A knowledge of the implications of the trigunic system and its consequences would have made it easier for you to understand my position on this (and much more), but I'm not going to insist on your getting such a knowledge. That's your choice.

Quote: ["How do you see pride as being a gate of freedom for the world?"]

I do not see it at all from such a double-bind question on your premises.

Concerning 'pride' I seldom am in a position to relate to it. I know very few 'proud' people, i.e. people having an exaggerated high opinion of themselves. A few sociopaths here and there, but once you've learned how to avoid them, it's not a problem.

Whereas I ofcourse know people, who can have a justified pride in e.g. a job well done.

I see no need for any 'god' as a reference-point in that connection (as with everything else).

This "trigunic system" sounds like something form Manga. Are you sure this is a term a person can look up under the heading of human knowledge? I tried a search and find nothing.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You wrote:

["You deny that love is the key to healing the world."]

In the context you put it. Yes, I deny it. Some put 'love' in other contexts, which I at least am less critical to.

A knowledge of the implications of the trigunic system and its consequences would have made it easier for you to understand my position on this (and much more), but I'm not going to insist on your getting such a knowledge. That's your choice.

Quote: ["How do you see pride as being a gate of freedom for the world?"]

I do not see it at all from such a double-bind question on your premises.

Concerning 'pride' I seldom am in a position to relate to it. I know very few 'proud' people, i.e. people having an exaggerated high opinion of themselves. A few sociopaths here and there, but once you've learned how to avoid them, it's not a problem.

Whereas I ofcourse know people, who can have a justified pride in e.g. a job well done.

I see no need for any 'god' as a reference-point in that connection (as with everything else).

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["This "trigunic system" sounds like something form Manga. Are you sure this is a term a person can look up under the heading of human knowledge? I tried a search and find nothing."]

It may be a very specialist term. I got it as a correction of my own use of 'guna' (the more common usage) from a guy, who was something of a specialist on religious terms in classical and (some) asian languages.

So try 'guna'. One version of it is found in autonom Tantra, another in tibetan buddhism and a third in the vedas (which I'm only moderately familiar with), where the exoteric version is the hindu triad 'gods'.

It has nothing to do with Manga. Sorry about that; I could have supplied you with more precise information, had I known, you would follow it up.

All creation is made up by a balance composed of all three forces. For creation to progress, each new stage "needs a force to maintain it and another force to develop it into a new stage. The force that develops the process in a new stage is rajo guna, while tamo guna is that which checks or retards the process in order to maintain the state already produced, so that it may form the basis for the next stage".

I read the wiki on the word. All cultures have an understanding of the trinity. The library of Alexandria held 40 volumes of books by Hermes (Enoch / Thoth). The only surviving copies were found scattered across Asia. What survives is the Corpus Hermeticum. This was ancient knowledge that was passed through the trade routes of the ancient world. We find biblical knowledge adapted in all countries, but the Bible is the surviving work that was brought out of Egypt with Moses. Follow the path. Enoch builds the pyramids. Joseph deciphers. Moses learns in the schools of Egypt before departing and receiving the Torah and law from God. Christ is the promised Son of God redeemer. He is mentioned in the first book of the Corpus as the Son of God who gives rebirth. God is the light. Confucius calls Him the Son of Heaven. Buddha also had the understanding of Heaven and rebirth.

This is where the Hebrews get the mystical side of Kabbalah. It is a holdover from Egyptian paganism. Moses tried to keep this as the secret knowledge passed form mouth to ear. It was too dangerous for anyone but the pure of heart. Those who found this mysticism formed cults of magic. We also find it showing up in secret societies across the ages and nations. Still to today, Hermetic mysticism is the go to knowledge for secret societies. Read Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike. It reveals all of this. Study the Zohar as I have and you see the reason they are interestd. Study the book of creation (Sefer Yetzirah) and you see why it was information they were after.

All secret societies are after the keys to creation. They want to unlock the tree of life (DNA). They want to unlock the symbols in Egypt because they know what they suggest. The story above is what they have been after. As I have said before, the flaming sword is what keeps them from seeing. It is bias against God. Your proof of God is found in the study of history. I've done the research. It is clear we are way over our heads with our current understanding of science. The Sefer Yetzirah demonstrates this. Man's search to understand this knowledge demonstrates this. This is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is man teaching himself apart from God's leading. The same story today all the way back to the garden.

No that I give you my perspective, lets hear your reasoning of the terms Trigunic and Guna.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You wrote:

["This "trigunic system" sounds like something form Manga. Are you sure this is a term a person can look up under the heading of human knowledge? I tried a search and find nothing."]

It may be a very specialist term. I got it as a correction of my own use of 'guna' (the more common usage) from a guy, who was something of a specialist on religious terms in classical and (some) asian languages.

So try 'guna'. One version of it is found in autonom Tantra, another in tibetan buddhism and a third in the vedas (which I'm only moderately familiar with), where the exoteric version is the hindu triad 'gods'.

It has nothing to do with Manga. Sorry about that; I could have supplied you with more precise information, had I known, you would follow it up.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["I read the wiki on the word. All cultures have an understanding of the trinity. The library of Alexandria held 40 volumes of books by Hermes (Enoch / Thoth). The only surviving copies were found scattered across Asia. What survives is the Corpus Hermeticum. This was ancient knowledge that was passed through the trade routes of the ancient world. We find biblical knowledge adapted in all countries, but the Bible is the surviving work that was brought out of Egypt with Moses. Follow the path. Enoch builds the pyramids. Joseph deciphers. Moses learns in the schools of Egypt before departing and receiving the Torah and law from God. Christ is the promised Son of God redeemer. He is mentioned in the first book of the Corpus as the Son of God who gives rebirth. God is the light. Confucius calls Him the Son of Heaven. Buddha also had the understanding of Heaven and rebirth."]

I'm a stickler for 'perspectives' (presenting a solid relevant background) myself, and I can also be rather extensive, and most likely overdoing it occasinally. But the above has little relevance to the 'guna' concept (which you theoretically wanted to consider); it's mainly a way of preaching alleged merits of the bible.

Quote: ["This is where the Hebrews get the mystical side of Kabbalah. It is a holdover from Egyptian paganism. Moses tried to keep this as the secret knowledge passed form mouth to ear. It was too dangerous for anyone but the pure of heart. Those who found this mysticism formed cults of magic. We also find it showing up in secret societies across the ages and nations. Still to today, Hermetic mysticism is the go to knowledge for secret societies."]

Your use of the word 'mystical' is imprecise. Please refine it.

Quote: ["Study the book of creation (Sefer Yetzirah) and you see why it was information they were after."]

I started on that some 20-30 years ago. And .....?

Quote: [" All secret societies are after the keys to creation. They want to unlock the tree of life (DNA). They want to unlock the symbols in Egypt because they know what they suggest."]

I consider 'secret societies' the same way, as I consider religions. A broad category with very varying truth/reality-seeking criteria, resulting in absurdities as well as more rational models.

Quote: ["As I have said before, the flaming sword is what keeps them from seeing. It is bias against God. Your proof of God is found in the study of history"]

Another of your assumptions, which doesn't become more 'true' through repetition.

Quote: ["I've done the research."]

With your subjective premises, and anyway I have less confidence in 'authority'-claims, than you appear to have.

Quote: ["It is clear we are way over our heads with our current understanding of science."]

This statement is a bit obscure, but a guess on my part is, that you don't know what autonomous science really is. You constantly use non-scientific procedures, believing them to be science. And when that is pointed out, you resort to circle-argumentation.

Quote: ["The Sefer Yetzirah demonstrates this. Man's search to understand this knowledge demonstrates this. This is the tree of knowledge of good and evil."]

As examplified here. There's no general and uniform interpretation of the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' amongst abrahamic religions. The kabbalistic tree is not identical with it, and from a rational perspective the situation is about obedience. You make slight similarities into something identical, as is practically a standard-procedure for 'design-claiming' christians. It NEVER functions.

Quote: [" It is man teaching himself apart from God's leading."]

A mythology-related postulate, and partly a double-bind.

Quote: ["No that I give you my perspective, lets hear your reasoning of the terms Trigunic and Guna."]

You haven't given me a perspective on 'gunas', you've just rephrased your preachings a bit. Nonetheless I will later today or tomorrow present some comments on the guna-system. I have some practical obligations also, I must meet.

reply to post by bogomil

You haven't given me a perspective on 'gunas', you've just rephrased your preachings a bit. Nonetheless I will later today or tomorrow present some comments on the guna-system. I have some practical obligations also, I must meet.

I reciprocated. Your ball now. Enlighten us.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil

 

You haven't given me a perspective on 'gunas', you've just rephrased your preachings a bit. Nonetheless I will later today or tomorrow present some comments on the guna-system. I have some practical obligations also, I must meet.

I reciprocated. Your ball now. Enlighten us.

Mainly by wandering off into directions, which have very little or nothing to do with the gunic system. As stated elsewhere I am not interested in supplying posts, which you use as a canvass for your own preachings.

I'm offski, as you apparantly can't find a common communication-platform.

I am gonna necro this thread because I believe the subject matter deserves to live.
Just a few points that I'd like to make.
The guna system is used to describe nature. The idea of "love" being One and encompassing everything refers to the esoteric world of the spiritual. The same goes for "mysticism", in that the ideas expressed through mystic teachings are not things that can be directly experimented upon in our material world. You can experiment and record the results, but the premise is that the action of mystical things occurs in a "spiritual" reality or dimension that is separate from our 3-dimensional reality of spacetime. So Bogomil is on Earth, standing there looking at existence from the perspective of a realist (or humanist). SuperiorEd, on the other hand, has a perspective rooted in this esoteric "mystical" spiritual realm, where he views the same existence but sees its mechanization in relation to the intrinsic values of the inner world of the soul. Neither view is right, but neither view is wrong, if that makes any sense.
Virtues and morals do not exist in nature. The results of the actions people take when reflecting on their idea of these things exist in nature, but the ideas themselves do not. Similar to the idea of guna, I suppose, only guna seems more like a tendency for objects to express the ideas of virtues and morals, and not the actual virtue or moral itself.
Regardless, the distinction that must be made is between the duality of our physical reality, and the "oneness" of the spiritual plane. Just as, in the story of the Garden of Eden, the first humans acquired the "Knowledge of Good and Evil", the idea is that, in the realm of our pre-existent soul, there is no good OR evil. There just IS. No duality. No space. No time. No change, and I think that might be the most important aspect. No change carries with it a variety of connotations.
The reason why "love" is considered the key, is because it allows us to regain this sense that we are all One, and, as reality is a reflection of the spiritual, we truly are One. By acknowledging this and basing our behavior on the premise that negative actions on an individual negatively affects the whole, and positive actions result in a similarly positive response of the whole, we see that by contributing only positive actions, regardless of the negative we may receive from others, we can truly progress and become more perfect in both our physical and spiritual aspects.