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.

 

My opinion of the Gnostic Demiurge

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


I apologize for the possible misunderstandings my answer to you could lead to.

I'm ofcourse not objecting to your position, but to those 'official' positions twisting the positive aspects of the NT etc. into doctrinal or social-engineering tools.




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Friend:

There were server problems all day with ATS, so I have improvised the quotations in this reply.

Quote:
“You dont really understand the metaphysics of this whole subject, do you??”
I do in fact understand the metaphysics behind what is being discussed. I am just not trying to make this “rocket science”. One person’s fleeting understanding and hypothesis explored, is another person’s “dogma”.
dictionary.reference.com...
met•a•phys•ics
   [met-uh-fiz-iks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
1.
the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles,includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimatelyconnected with epistemology.
2.
philosophy, especially in its more abstruse branches.
3.
the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field ofinquiry.
4.
( initial capital letter, italics ) a treatise (4th century b.c.)by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation ofuniversals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine ofcausation.
Origin:
1560–70; < Medieval Latin metaphysica < Medieval Greek ( tà )metaphysiká (neuter plural), Greek tà metà tà physiká the(works) after the Physics; with reference to the arrangement ofAristotle's writings

Going back to my original post in your thread, I identified that there Is not a set operational definitions. Looking at the definition above I see “abstruse”:

ab•struse
   [ab-stroos] Show IPA
adjective
1.
hard to understand; recondite; esoteric: abstruse theories.
2.
Obsolete . secret; hidden.

Origin:
1590–1600; < Latin abstrūsus thrust away, concealed (pastparticiple of abstrūdere ), equivalent to abs- abs- + trūd- thrust+ -tus past participle suffix

Related forms
ab•struse•ly, adverb
ab•struse•ness, noun

Can be confused:  abstruse, obtuse.

Synonyms
1. incomprehensible, unfathomable, arcane.
Antonyms
1. clear, uncomplicated, simple; obvious.

Why is it that the Dali Lama, Thomas Merton, DT Suzuki, and Thich Nhat Hanh, came together and had stirring conversations, about exactly what each was writing about? To gain “gnosis” of the other persons perspective, so that they had a set of operational definitions amongst each other.

I said I was not trying to make this “rocket science”, because it is not! I am about to use five examples of great teachers; I am not putting my gnosis at their level. Krishna, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Quatzequatel. Each of these persons used stories or parables when teaching. Why would they do such a thing? Ah, they were asking the listener to use their own “gnosis” to gain understanding.


Quote:
“The creator God, the masculine "sky God", as you called him, is the LAW GIVER, in principle, because he is manifest within man as conscience and reason.

This is what is meant by the whole "God was walking in the garden" when Adam and Eve hid from him. “

Again, further misunderstanding about what is being discussed. Thus, additional confusion. “Sky God” from me was a Mesoamerican term! Oh, oh, as per Adam and Eve…What say thou about the Sumerian Text? Do they not pre-date the Hebraic tradition?

Quote:
“Listen, did you not read that i practice Zen meditation every sunday?? Obviously i am aware of what you believe. I dont need to be "pushed further", because unlike most people here, i test my beliefs. I am not afraid of dipping my toes into different waters. “

I have thought all morning about how to respect your “Sunday Meditaion”…Some times LOVE is a kick in the rear end. I was raised Lutheran and this sounds like…”I put a fiver in the Offering Plate”. Sorry, you do not understand Zen nor Buddhism based on this statement. Being mindful is in the now/constant moment and setting aside a part of each day (20 some minutes) to quite the mind. Now, further on Zen from DT Suzuki; An Introduction to Zen Buddhism p. 33:

…but simply because the human tongue is not an adequate organ for expressing the deepest truths of ZEN, the latter cannot be made to subject of logical exposition; they are to be experienced in the inmost soul when they become for the first ineligible.

In DT Suzuki’s same work, Carl Jung writes on p. 13 in the Foreword:

When one examines the Zen text attentively, one cannot escape the impression that all that is bizarre in it, satori is, in fact, a matter of natural occurrence, of something so very simple (Suzuki; Essays, I, p.12.) that one fails to see the wood for the trees, and in attempting to explain it, invariably says the very thing that drives others into greatest confusion. (Suzuki; Essays, I, p.12.)

Each of the above sounds like personal “gnosis”. How can I explain to you my true understanding of the “gnosis” I have recieved in meditation/prayer experiences?

Quote:
“Unlike Gnosticism, the Torah, Hebraism (and as taught by Judaism), has an objectively transcendant system to rely on - the Hebrew language, whereas Gnosticism has nothing but speculative philosophy.”

See the above quotes above about Zen that you say you practice once a week on Sunday’s. Yes that sounds harsh. I am not trying to disgrace you, I have provided for you some things to reflect on this evening.

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung



edit on 29-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Too much existentialism and Nihilism for me, thankyou very much.

You beat everything to death, dont you?

How can you believe in anything??

And yes. Because Hebrew is as it is, at the archetypal level, and i cannot for the life of me explain how this language or the Torah, was compiled as it was. I will assume, and have faith (as you do with your own beliefs) because i consider faith to be the basis of all things.

My entire belief is encapsulated by this saying of the Torah

"He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD."

Man, Hebrew for manna, is the root of the word eMuNah (belief/faith).

He humbled us by putting us into a strange world.

Caused us to hunger - for truth and meaning

Feeding us with Mannah - belief in his providential authority over all things

"Which neither you nor your fathers knew" - Neither the ego, nor the self, can come to this awareness without Gods direct intervention.

"to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." - The bread, "lechem", is not simply bread or food, but anything within outside reality which is processed by the mind. In other words, we all rely on faith. We look at the world, and we interpret it in the way we need; in whatever way it benefits us.

The Torah is teaching man, that it is not 'bread' that sustains you, but rather belief. And the ultimate, most intuitively logical truth, is that all this - the world around us, the power to believe, doesnt exist on its own, but rather "on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord". God is the reason for everything, no matter how much you try to dissect and make believe differently. God is God, man is man.

And where does Gnosticism come in? Gnosticism is the negation of all this. It is Existentialism/Nihilism, in a mythological wrapper. It hates the world, and hates anything that doesnt immideately benefit it. And the demiurge idea is nothing but a means to achieve an end; liberation from Gods yoke. Liberation from conscience, morality, responsibility, humility.

Thats all i think it is. I look with complete and utter suspicion towards gnostic claims about "experience", as if their hate for God, conscience, and the strain it puts on their own selves, and what they feel they need, isnt their main motivation.

Thats what i think it is.

Ive seen the beauty and good within Judaism, or any belief system which bases itself on morality, and goodness. Conversely, i can definitely see the personal benefit gnosticism, or any other antinomian philosophy can provide. I just simply dont think it is good, both theologically, logically, empirically.

I think the world could be a much better, and more decent place if we all just humbled ourselves.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 





Again, further misunderstanding about what is being discussed. Thus, additional confusion. “Sky God” from me was a Mesoamerican term! Oh, oh, as per Adam and Eve…What say thou about the Sumerian Text? Do they not pre-date the Hebraic tradition?


Well sky God is a popular Indo-European/Semitic term for God, ie; Dyeus, Zeus, Deus, and this "God" is almost always considered the artificer, or law maker of reality, and so the archetypal association between reason - logos - and the masculine "sky God".

Look at mans spiritual form and physical form if you doubt this interpretation.

A womens head on average reaches a mans chest area. This implies that a womans 'consciousness' ie; her head, is 'emotional', which as we all know, is true. Even Jung interprets a womans dominant consciousness as emotional (the anima) while her masculine, unconscious side is 'intellectual.

Conversely, a mans head 'transcends' the female. Men are thus more Intellectual, philosophical, or logical.

Is this correspondence between our inner form - our spiritual particularities - and the physical form, coincidence to you?? Who established this connection between the inner and the outer? Man?

And as for the sumerian tradition. Is there a text talking about God walking through the garden? I dont believe there is.

As for the existence of pagan myths which antedate the myths in genesis. I dont oppose that. Afterall, the book of genesis is pre-revelation of the Torah, which begins in the book of exodus. Therefore, it would be perfectly natural for the myths of genesis to be found in earlier civilizations; ie; the sumerian epic of gilgamesh containing similar myths.




Again, further misunderstanding about what is being discussed


There is no misunderstanding what is being discussed. I think you and I are approaching this issue from two entirely different, mutually exclusive perspectives. Thus, i "misunderstand" you, and you "misunderstand" me. But overall, you and i seem to be arguing the same point, except you ignore, or reject my 'metaphysics' - the objective - which underlies my morality, while you merely give allowance to 'experience', the subjective, believing there could be nothing more. Or perhaps there neednt be anything more.

My study of Torah, the Hebrew language, has taught me differently. I will not jump with the 'popular crowd', with the DT Suzukis, Carl Jung and Alan Watts becaue everyone else does.

If im alone, im alone. G-d strengthens me in my religious convictions not to be as intolerant as you are - ie; i must be 'missing your point" "mistaking the wood for the trees"... Nope. I see the trees just fine. As i said earlier, the numerical value of the Hebrew word for One - Echad, is the same as that for love - Ahavah, and also, most importantly, Avi - My father; my spiritual source, is one, and love.





See the above quotes above about Zen that you say you practice once a week on Sunday’s. Yes that sounds harsh. I am not trying to disgrace you, I have provided for you some things to reflect on this evening.


Well, again, im not seeking your approval, nor do i feel disgraced.

I practice Zen not to come to a "deeper understanding of reality", which is subjective anyhow, but to attain inner peace. There is nothing theological about Zen, and i like that. That is one of the main things about it that appeals to me. It is a means to an end. That is all it is to me.

Of course, i will never appreciate or truly 'practice zen" the way one who subscribes to it wholeheatedly will. My Zen is auxiliary to my belief in the Torah, and its metaphysics (although i am not Jewish)

There is no contradiction between the two. I use Zen because a) im not a Jew, so i do not live the Jewish lifestyle or program to benefit from it, and b) i need it.

Zen has helped me become more mindful, to encompass greater areas of consciousness, and so assists me in overcoming my own personal problems.

Nonethless, i will not be so arrogant to jump to conclusions. Its all still subjective. Whereas the Torah, as i have discovered through my studies, is no mere book of myth, or the work of the 'demiurge'. It is Gods mind.

edit on 29-8-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Very interesting topic. You seem well versed in the subject matter. I would love for you to respond to my comment on the below post you made.


Evil exists, and no understanding person can deny that it exists. The issue is, what shall we make of it? The gnostic solution is a radical one. Any libertine, 'do what thou wilt' philosopy is unstable. One CANNOT live, and follow the philosopy of an aliester crowley, for instance, without ending up just like him.


I can not agree more with your view on Crowley, he walked the "Path of Icarus" and he led his followers in the same direction when he created Thelema.

All of the below is simply my opinion, since I am more than willing to admit that I (along with every other human in the world IMO) do not know what the hell is going on and I am seeking answers to the great mystery.

I have a few contentions with your post(s). Starting with your stigmatizing of Mysticism. I understand your religion/belief is at odds with such practices and you have a good understanding of Qabalah. I think many people who study Mysticism do not understand that it is meant to evolve.

Ritual, symbolism, and the understanding of God evolves with us. While many of the practices (in any religion/belief) are quite old we can see how they have changed over the years. This is a result of mans ever evolving understanding of God.

The farther back you go in history the more violent God becomes (in many faiths anyway).

God is not violent. God does not harbor jealousy, anger, or hate. God does not cause pain or anguish just because one fails to acknowledge Gods power.

God is "Love, Harmony, and Joy"

Dogma has destroyed faith/belief. God does not require anything of us, other than that we live.

You said in you post that "do what that wilt" philosophies are unstable. Yes, you are right. But that is because knowledge is naturally "gray" it can be used to any end.

Crowley's failure was that he preached that one could do anything to achieve ones "Will" and he created a dogma around himself. This feeds the "dominating ego" and leads one down the "Path of Icarus" where one thinks himself greater than God. This IS wrong and has led many to do evil.

But will we be punished by God for doing evil? No. Because what is evil? It is all up for interpretation. There are so many messages and so much information that it creates the illusion that black is white and white is black. I do not want to debate on what is and is not evil, because socially we have created the laws that protect us from horrible acts.

Evil people control the world. This is because evil is easier than good.

God wants us to do good. But I believe God wants us to do good because we want to. Not because of the promise of a reward and not because of the threat of condemnation and eternal suffering. We are to learn to do good in a world with no rules or conditions, to be "Beacons of Light Within the Darkness ".

To quote Bill Hicks " In fact the reality is we are one with God and He loves us, and there is nothing we can do to change that. It is only our illusion that we are separate from God".

We are not greater than God. For it is a fools errand to attempt to be.

We are part of God. We are one with God. We are divine beings.

Genesis 22: 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

Go with God my friend

edit on 29-8-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Some people try to put all existence in a diagram with circles and arrows, others are sceptical to such an approach, as they say: The map is not the territory.



I'm so sorry you didn't get or grok fully that which I was trying to convey, but instead chose to negate it.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 





God is not violent. God does not harbor jealousy, anger, or hate. God does not cause pain or anguish just because one fails to acknowledge Gods power.


I disagree.

Some people think, as the Gnostics did, that if God were truly God he wouldnt have said "I am God and there is no other god besides me", implying to them that there must be other gods. Logically, that doesnt hold up.

The Hebrew word El means "power" or "god" ie; a god is anything percieved as having power. We have freewill, and we can indeed make gods with our own "hands" ie; our beliefs.

Thus, if God truly is God, he WOULD say that only He is God, while these fictitious archetypes, as pagan philosophy/polytheism breaks the world up, are mere creations of the human mind; aspects of the one whole, but not God as his is in his simplicity.

Since God is God, why wouldnt he have jealousy? The Hebrew word Kana, commonly translated as "jealousy" also means zealousness. God is zealous when one doesnt acknowledge him, because its for that persons own benefit that he come to know his creator. Thus, if i walk in the way of falsehood, and self delusion, God is zealously seeking our attention; that we focus on Him, the only true reality, and so save ourselves from needless sufferring.

Its worth mentioning that the Hebrew name of God, YHVH, means "being" and "eternity".




This IS wrong and has led many to do evil.


This was also the main theme of valentian gnosticism. It is wrong and it does give people licence to do as they please because "this world isnt real", so its ok for them to make life hell for anyone so unfortunate to encounter their 'will' .

Crowleys philosophy was such utter nonsense, it amazes me that anyone could read his filth and think this is a reasonable way to look at the world.. It appeals to egomaniacs. Thats it.




But will we be punished by God for doing evil? No. Because what is evil? It is all up for interpretation. There are so many messages and so much information that it creates the illusion that black is white and white is black. I do not want to debate on what is and is not evil, because socially we have created the laws that protect us from horrible acts.


I disagree.

I can give you a brief example for what qualifies as "evil" . In Hebrew, the word for "to sin" is Chet - which also means "to miss the mark", as in when one shoots an arrow and misses his target.

This is the inner meaning of the Lurianic doctrine of tikkun, which means rectification. This is when one emotion is interincluded within another, or, in a practical example, when you take account of an objective reality, and respond to it in a just and fair manner.

For instance. Lets say you wanted to go to the zoo. But you cant go because your mom doesnt have the money. The "tikkun" for this situation would be to acknowledge your mothers financial situation, and accept the fact that you cannot go. A further tikkun of this situation would be to see how your mother reacts. If she is sad that she cant bring you, it would be a great kindness for you to her, give her a hug and a kiss and tell "dont worry about it. When you get the money we'll go".

This is an example of Tikkun.

Of couse, there are more complicated situations which require greater analysis of the facts at hand. But there is ALWAYS a proper response.

A general rule is, selfishness, and egotism, is a sin. It neglects objective reality; it rejects another persons situation, and elevates your own self/desires above others.

A beuatiful Jewish idea which captivated me when i first heard it is this.

To truly give, is to recieve. This is because we all know the tremendous joy we have in being good, in helping another person. We therefore "recieve" joy from giving. Thus, ironically, to recieve is actually to give, while to give is to recieve.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 





To quote Bill Hicks " In fact the reality is we are one with God and He loves us, and there is nothing we can do to change that. It is only our illusion that we are separate from God". We are not greater than God. For it is a fools errand to attempt to be. We are part of God. We are one with God. We are divine beings. Genesis 22: 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.


Thats an interesting interpretation.

Whether you call yourself a child of God, or a divine being, as long as you understand your place relative to the creator, its fine.

Only when you think you can be AS God, ie; to do as you will, flouting the divine will, only then does God "punish" you

Another, commonly misunderstood idea is divine punishment. Punishment is misleading. Perhaps 'correction', or the result of the law of causation, would be more precise.

This world is based on laws. There are physical laws, and there are also spiritual - moral laws.

If you do something evil to another person, God "punishes" you, not out of divine anger (which can be interpolated), but because you did that to another person. Thats what you get.

If i throw a rock at a glass house, it will shatter. Thats just the way glass houses are. A rock hits the house and it will shatter. I cannot blame anyone but myself for doing that.

Likewise, if you do evil, or act unjustly, the world - creation - will eventually bring the fruits of your actions back to you. Something "evil" will happen to you.

Easterners call it Karma, Kabbalah calls it "measure for measure". The universe always seeks its balance.

Thats all that is meant, albeit, expressed poetically, by Gods "anger", and "punishment"



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



I have no clue how you just turned my consistent message of "urging you to find similarities" as you look across religions/philosophies in the world, and lack of operational definitions creating separation, into "me being closed minded".

Absolutely WOW, or should I say bravo!

Then you go on to not even see that Zen is the Gnosticism you speak of in Buddhism in the quotes that involve the leading interpreter of Zen. I do not expect you to fall at DT Suzuki's feet, but your dismissal of the persons who began interfaith dialog, especially, in the area of applied spirituality is...well, your choice...Then you continue to ride the "Torah" train?

I am now going to shut up. Please do continue to question and gain gnosis.

I really should have stopped at Meh...

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

edit on 29-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 





I have no clue how you just turned my consistent message of "urging you to find similarities" as you look across religions/philosophies in the world, and lack of operational definitions creating separation, into "me being closed minded". Absolutely WOW, or should I say bravo!


The tune of your last post was more pugnacious then your earlier ones.

In anycase, this is a gnostic DEMIURGE thread!

What does your "urging me to to find similarities" have at all to do with this thread? Or my beliefs?

If i practice Zen, obviously, i am not as closed minded, or having difficulty finding similarities between belief systems as you think i am.

I am open to studying any religious philosophy. My only concern is that the objective conclusions be moral, and just.

Because gnosticism, being a metaphysical nihilism, is not, i reject it.



Zen is the Gnosticism you speak of in Buddhism


This thread is about the concept of the Demiurge. Does the Demiurge concept exist within Buddhism, or Zen, as it does within Gnosticism?

If it does, it doesnt matter. I practice zen for the immediate benefits i can derive from it.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Onboard2
 




The Egyptians worshipped the self - the Ram - which is why Moshe told Pharoah he had to leave Egypt - or Mitzarim - the limatations of a created being - to serve YHVH. He had to LEAVE that world, of arrogance, and the worship of the self, in order to SEE, that indeed, above Elohim is a greater God, YHVH, who of course Pharoah (the ego) "doesnt know".

The obelisk, being a man made phallic symbol, signifies mans position as the active force, ie; it is MANS willpower that is deified. This renders the spiritual worlds passive. Mans behavior transforms spiritual reality, the same way EYWA is a tranformation of the name YHWH.

Its all sorcery. Changing the creation, pretending, or believing, that the creator G-d really isnt G-d.




Well, I think Eywa has much more in common with nature than YHWH the jeolous god. There is no 'H' in Eywa. I think sometimes we want to see the similarity in something so strongly that our beliefs make ti so. I have read the ancient gnostics developed their beliefs through experiences and it's older than christianity.

Also the Egyptians had a pantheon of gods they worshipped. I've never read anything about their worshipping themselves, but I could be wrong. Akhenaton's monotheism changed the worship of many gods to one god. Some believe he was actually Moses. I certainly don't claim to know. There is no record of Moses anywhere in Egypt.

I can tell you've studied a great deal and I do believe there is meaning to sound. I know very little of the evolved gnosticism that we read of today, but i do think it's possible to have first-hand mystical experiences of a higher nature and not just read about it on an intellectual level.

Oddly, noone has ever seen god. This doesn't mean I do not belief there is something more to 'us'. I know we can acheive higher states of consciousness. As many people that have had NDEs, have any come back and claimed they saw god? Wasn't Jesus the personification of god in human form? I do believe that everything is of a creative intelligent consciousness that we are a part of. I believe we have a true essence.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Onboard2
 





Well, I think Eywa has much more in common with nature than YHWH the jeolous god. There is no 'H' in Eywa


Its close enough. Besides Heh is a simple guttoral sound. It doesnt have to be present.




I've never read anything about their worshipping themselves, but I could be wrong


Look into the archetypal meaning of the Zodiac. The Ram - Aries - symbolizes the highest faculty in the psyche, and so is associated with the self.

This is the esoteric meaning of Moses telling Pharoah that he wanted to sacrifice the god worshippd by the Egyptians; the Ram - Khnum (who is the source of the Nile river, which was venerated as the giver of good. The nile is a symbol for existentialism. Water fills all things. Khnum, being a symbol for the self, is the source of the nile), but in order to do so, he had to leave Egypt - the world of limitations.

Egyptian religion was very sophisticated and it wasnt much different from Gnosticism.




Oddly, noone has ever seen god. This doesn't mean I do not belief there is something more to 'us'.


Thats not odd at all. God is not a thing to be seen.




Wasn't Jesus the personification of god in human form?


According to Christian theology, yes.

According to Gnosticism, he is the universal self, Jungs transcendant function, akin to the Al Khidr of Islam, Buddah or Krishna.

I tend to agree with the above positions, as they arent theological nonsense.

In either case, God is present in every human being equally, but no human being is God. To say so would be to subscribe to an existentialism which makes every human being equally god, and so subject to his own inner law.

This is the popular position of pagan belief systems.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
You said, quote:

"According to Christian theology, yes.

According to Gnosticism, he is the universal self, Jungs transcendant function, akin to the Al Khidr of Islam, Buddah or Krishna.

I tend to agree with the above positions, as they arent theological nonsense.

In either case, God is present in every human being equally, but no human being is God. To say so would be to subscribe to an existentialism which makes every human being equally god, and so subject to his own inner law.

This is the popular position of pagan belief systems."




AHHHHHHH...I said i was going to shut up... HOWEVER...HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRISY.

You have continued to contradict and only chose what fits your thoughts and views at the given moment from the start of this thread.

A spade is a spade!

You need to go back and look at the in-consistence's of thought that you provide to each and every person in this thread. You jump form one idea to another just to satisfy what ever it is you are looking to feel good about!

This is because you do not nail down a consistent operational definition for this discussion. THIS GOES BACK TO MY VERY POINT! Pick and chose for your own self benefit.

I brought up Jung and Krishna to you and you ignore...

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung
edit on 30-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChungTsuU
HHHHHHH...I said i was going to shut up... HOWEVER...HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRISY.

You have continued to contradict and only chose what fits your thoughts and views at the given moment from the start of this thread.

A spade is a spade!

You need to go back and look at the in-consistence's of thought that you provide to each and every person in this thread. You jump form one idea to another just to satisfy what ever it is you are looking to feel good about!

This is because you do not nail down a consistent operational definition for this discussion. THIS GOES BACK TO MY VERY POINT! Pick and chose for your own self benefit.

I brought up Jung and Krishna to you and you ignore...

Regards and Nameste, . THIS GOES BACK TO MY VERY POINT! Pick and chose for your own self benefit.

I brought up Jung and Krishna to you and you ignore...

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung
edit on 30-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)


You know, if your going to argue that im contradicting myself, the proper thing is to then show where i contradicted myself.

The post you quoted - what was wrong with it???

The main reason im ignoring your posts is because theyre nebulous. You leave one liners, or parables, and expect me to come away completely edified.

In Jewish thought, this is pointed out as a vain and gratuitous activity.

If you want a response, in which you will be UNDERSTOOD, format your posts a little more coherently.




do not nail down a consistent operational definition


I dont have trouble with logic. Please, explain more clearly what you mean by this. Where did i depart from a consistent operational definition?

He made a statement, and i commented on it from various viewpoints. According to Christian theology, Jesus is God in human form. In Gnosticism, Jesus is a symbol for the self, which is akin to Jungs transcendant function. Al Khidr, if youve read the narrative in the Quran where talks with Moses, is also a clear symbol for this same process or transcendant awareness of the unity of all things.

Buddah and Krishna, based on what i have read, also seem to correspond along the same lines.

So......... whats the problem???
edit on 30-8-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



If you do not understand what "operational definitions" are than you should have never started this thread!

The first purpose of any dissertation of any subject is to provide to the reader and collegian community a clear understanding of the verbiage that one is going to use throughout the document.

Without this defining comes chaos of discussion! This has always been my main point! Do you recall? It is actually the framework of academic accepted discussion.


Originally posted by ChungTsuU
reply to post by dontreally
 



Friends:

I have made it to the end of page 2 and there is an ongoing challenge that needs to be brought up to everyone. There is no use of a set of operational definitions involved when looking across the spectrum of discussion.

I feel that when this happens in these type of threads so many people are unable to pull back and see that they are actually talking about the same things. Further this is a exactly what the "editors" of the ancient works wanted to happen.

Consider this planetary social experiment:

This experiment is going to last for 1000 years, and consist of an original 100,000 persons of a random age and sex. All live in the same geographic area, and all food, goods, and facilities are communal property. There is no knowledge of another way to live, and there are no other persons on this planet.

The first 100 years everyone comes together in their homes every evening to watch the "TELLING" on TV of how their society was set up by the "scientist" and how they work together as a community so all persons can advance. There is a rotating counsel of elders where no person can have a repeat seat on counsel ever.

At the end of a 100 years the "scientist" come in gather people in a completely random manner and relocate the people in groups of approximately 1000 (depending on birth and death rate over the prior 100 years), in ten various parts of the planet where there can be no contact with another group. Person are unable to take any thing but the clothing they are wearing.

Each group is given only rudimentary gardening tools for gardening and small number of animals to begin new herds and flocks. The TV is not there and is no electricity. Additionally, the "scientist" have brought 10 newcomers from off planet for each group, thus 100 newcomers in total.

These newcomer look just like the originals, even speaks the same language. Except they just graduated from Wharton at the University of Pennsylvania. The 10 new comers are from the various areas of study. The "scientist" leave and say;

"We will be back in 900 years. The most important thing to remember when we come back is the "TELLING!"

I wonder what would be the result of the "TELLING" from each group?

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung



edit on 25-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)


Regards and Nameste,

-Chung



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChungTsuU
reply to post by dontreally
 



If you do not understand what "operational definitions" are than you should have never started this thread!

The first purpose of any dissertation of any subject is to provide to the reader and collegian community a clear understanding of the verbiage that one is going to use throughout the document.

Without this defining comes chaos of discussion! This has always been my main point! Do you recall? It is actually the framework of academic accepted discussion.


Originally posted by ChungTsuU
reply to post by dontreally
 



Friends:

I have made it to the end of page 2 and there is an ongoing challenge that needs to be brought up to everyone. There is no use of a set of operational definitions involved when looking across the spectrum of discussion.

I feel that when this happens in these type of threads so many people are unable to pull back and see that they are actually talking about the same things. Further this is a exactly what the "editors" of the ancient works wanted to happen.

Consider this planetary social experiment:

This experiment is going to last for 1000 years, and consist of an original 100,000 persons of a random age and sex. All live in the same geographic area, and all food, goods, and facilities are communal property. There is no knowledge of another way to live, and there are no other persons on this planet.

The first 100 years everyone comes together in their homes every evening to watch the "TELLING" on TV of how their society was set up by the "scientist" and how they work together as a community so all persons can advance. There is a rotating counsel of elders where no person can have a repeat seat on counsel ever.

At the end of a 100 years the "scientist" come in gather people in a completely random manner and relocate the people in groups of approximately 1000 (depending on birth and death rate over the prior 100 years), in ten various parts of the planet where there can be no contact with another group. Person are unable to take any thing but the clothing they are wearing.

Each group is given only rudimentary gardening tools for gardening and small number of animals to begin new herds and flocks. The TV is not there and is no electricity. Additionally, the "scientist" have brought 10 newcomers from off planet for each group, thus 100 newcomers in total.

These newcomer look just like the originals, even speaks the same language. Except they just graduated from Wharton at the University of Pennsylvania. The 10 new comers are from the various areas of study. The "scientist" leave and say;

"We will be back in 900 years. The most important thing to remember when we come back is the "TELLING!"

I wonder what would be the result of the "TELLING" from each group?

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung



edit on 25-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)


Regards and Nameste,

-Chung


Further this is why I went to the length I did in identifying that the MAJOR leaders of our day (Dali Lama, Thomas Merton, Thich Nhat Hanhn, and DT Suzuki), sat down and identified the differences and decided to have "operational definitions". Yet, you totally ignore facts such as this.

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung


edit on 30-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 


Care to explain with that post you quoted where my logic was lacking???

This time, try to calm yourself.

For someone so into mysticism and spirituality you do this !!!!! quite often.

With this thread, how would you have started it? I began by challenging the gnostic demiurgic idea.How would you have established "a clear understanding of the verbiage that one is going to use throughout the document"..??

And btw. This is an internet forum. I began this thread a few days ago. I dont have the time, nor the energy, nor even the interest, to abide by your strenuous academic standards.

If this were a dissertation, indeed, i would put more thought and care into not changing subjects so often. BUT, this is an internet forum
Ok?

That post i made which you quoted about the self shouldnt have caused the amount of confusion it seems to be causing you.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 


Care to explain with that post you quoted where my logic was lacking???

This time, try to calm yourself.

For someone so into mysticism and spirituality you do this !!!!! quite often.

With this thread, how would you have started it? I began by challenging the gnostic demiurgic idea.How would you have established "a clear understanding of the verbiage that one is going to use throughout the document"..??

And btw. This is an internet forum. I began this thread a few days ago. I dont have the time, nor the energy, nor even the interest, to abide by your strenuous academic standards.

If this were a dissertation, indeed, i would put more thought and care into not changing subjects so often. BUT, this is an internet forum
Ok?

That post i made which you quoted about the self shouldnt have caused the amount of confusion it seems to be causing you.


To begin with the "internet" thing does not work especially concerning metaphysics. I would have stated this is the meaning of, and if you look across the areas of religion and philosophy they may be understood as ...In this thread they will be known as ... If you have any questions as to there meaning please let me know.

Look at threads that are started by Slayer69 or Westcoast. these persons go out of their way to make sure that persons on the "internet/ATS" understand what the "operational definitions" are for the thread. Frequently they site academic sources. When they do not, all person reading their threads are given "gnosis" as to what in-particular they mean.

Religion and philosophy is the last place areas that one can "assume" (ASS out of U and ME), that each person is speaking from the same base of "gnosis".

en.wikipedia.org...

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

P.S.

Very calm, the AHHHH was your hypocritical approach in this thread...More like a JEEZ.



edit on 30-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 


Ok.....

Im sorry for failing to write up operational definitions. It must have caused immense amounts of confusion

Now as for that post you quoted of mine. Where was the hypocricy or contradiction?? Do i need to write up a whole new set of operational definitions before i discuss any topic?? Is that really necessary?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


P.S.S.

As to it causing me consternation because I am so into spirituality and mysticism (i.e. yeah I should let it all go right? Rhetorical) ... It is because things such as this thread have contributed to the mass misunderstanding of "gnosis" and your continued conflicts within this thread. Another poster brought this up:


Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 


Thanks for your response.

It's a pity, that this didn't go much beyond how to make the 'formal' arrangements in such a debate, to ensure that the thread isn't just a disguised sermon on one religion's (or system's) superiority.

Because both....... the intrinsic qualities I mentioned as being what gnosticism is (instead of the travesty created of/around it)......and the outer manifestations of gnosticism aren't the simplistic picture many have of it.

The 'mystery-school' similarities to gnosticism are obvious because of the direct-experience methodology all mystic traditions have, but the inclusion of secrecy, hocus-pocus and magic passwords is an exoteric fantasy-invention, as is the image of a 'higher initiate' as someone looking as a cross between Gandalf the white and a druid, and behaving accordingly.

It's a science-of-mind, where accessibility/in-accessibility lies in competence, not in diagrams with circles and arrows taking you straight to 'being there' or magic wands.

The cosmogony/cosmology of gnosticism is almost on par with the buddhistic, and is on general terms as good a philosophical position as that of any other religion.

The outer social manifestations of gnosticism, e.g. as an existential ethical system is similarly far from what's been implied in OP and later in the thread, and nihilism isn't part of it.

But theists often have problems with understanding the concept of 'freedom with responsibility'. Apparently the authority-dependency in monotheism DEFINES this concept away as impossible.

But I guess, we'll probably not get to that.


edit on 28-8-2011 by bogomil because: syntax




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join