John fitzsimon 2012-01-16 10:50:23
< snip >
Yep. IMO an experience that one has had oneself tends to be more
meaningful than one that someone else has had. Perhaps hundreds,
or thousands, of years ago.
John fitzsimon 2012-01-16 10:50:25
< snip >
IMO you have hit on one of the major strengths of Spiritualism as
opposed to some other religion. It doesn’t rely on “sacred books”.
People are encouraged to question and think for themselves. Not
blindly quote some sort of “scripture”.
Spiritualism tends to try and unify beliefs/people from multiple
religious persuasions. Orthodox religions however tend to
John fitzsimon 2012-01-16 10:52:40
Well, one may hurt a lot of other people in our quest for “joy”. The
point of incarnation is spiritual growth. That may, or may not, involve any joy.
“Teachings” of any sort can also be incorrectly translated into other languages and/or misinterpreted.
Being a “business” isn’t IMO necessarily “bad”. It’s what that
business does that is the important thing.
Orthodox churches have long been about “controlling” people. “Do as we
say or you are damned”. Fortunately Spiritualist philosophy isn’t like that.
Good. Nice to know it is available somewhere else than in Germany.
Your English is much better than my French. 🙂
,-._|\ John Fitzsimons – Melbourne, Australia.
/ Oz \ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
John fitzsimon 2012-01-16 10:52:42
< snip >
No easier IMO. Our sins don’t need to be “forgiven” in the first
place. If we do wrongs then we need to right them. In Spiritualist
philosophy this is termed “karma”.
< snip >
,-._|\ John Fitzsimons – Melbourne, Australia.
/ Oz \ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
James 2012-01-19 06:42:37
I still find strong correlation between the teachings of Jesus and
spiritualism, but I think most people in churches close their ears to the
true teaching and churches can have their own agendas
someone wrongs me and I develop hatred toward them I regonize this hatred
in my heart and I forgive them and it clears my heart of hatred
I wrong someone in the past I ask God to forgive my sins
and lead a righteous life and my heart is cleared of sin
In order to be forgiven you must forgive isn’t this “Karma”
John fitzsimon 2012-01-19 06:43:07
< snip >
Fine. That’s what you are meant to do.
No, it isn’t. One doesn’t need to ask God to forgive sins. That is an
idea that church authorities thought up to get people dependent on
them. “Going to confession” is not karma.
The soul needs to learn from it’s actions. It does so by experiencing
the sort of things it did to others and/or by reversing the actions.
Specifically and/or in general.
“Your sins are forgiven” simply means that “your karma has been
cleared”. Not by some priest, or God, “forgiving” anything but by
the completion of the learning experience.
,-._|\ John Fitzsimons – Melbourne, Australia.
/ Oz \ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
Ronald 2012-01-20 14:30:27
But doesn’t God determine if what you do is sufficient to clear your karma?
So it’s up to him if it gets cleared or not (in my opinion).
Christian religion believes that forgiveness comes with true repentance,
which is basically clearing your karma. Also you seem to believe that
when a person dies all the wrongs he did in the world (his bad karma),
goes away with him. But there is sufficient evidence that it remains
until some actions are taken by someone to balance it, or clear it.
As I mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence that wrongs that
people committed in the world will continue to affect people long
after that person has died. So praying to God to forgive the sins
of others in the world is necessary. For example in extreme cases
this is clearly felt, such as houses where a violent murder has occurred.
Sensitive people living in that house will continue to feel that oppression
for years afterwards, unless some action is taken, like praying, which
seems to act to clear that concentration of energy that was accumulated
as a result of that action.
David mott 2012-01-23 08:27:23
In most spiritual traditions, God is not thought of in the same way as the
Christian religion. In most spiritual paths, God is all of nature, the
process of life. Karma is a law of nature (God), and is held by to the
induvidual, and is therfore up to them to remove.
From a spiritualits perspective, repentance is for the sinner, not because
God is keeping a score card and requires one to remain at par. Even in the
Christian religion, repentance isn’t a resolve required by God, it’s a tool
availible for the karma bearer. The natural order is free will, hold onto or
remove the karmas, existance doesnt care.
Nick argall 2012-01-23 08:27:25
I think it’s very dangerous to go mixing things like that. Since Buddhism
is one of the most populated of the world’s religions, and does not have a
concept that equates to the Judeo-Christian God at all, it’s misleading to
say that they have that concept in a different form. They don’t.
I am currently a follower of Taoism. In my view, to the extend that “God”
exists, he’s a powerful, vengeful spirit who laid a claim on some of the
most valuable real estate in the world, a claim that various peoples keep
trying to enforce in his name.
The different religions of the world are different to each other. Saying
that “God’s forgiveness” is the same as “clearing your karma” is like saying
that a fork is essentially the same as a pair of chopsticks. While there is
some truth in the comparison, the opportunity to learn how to use either
tool properly is taken away if you shrug your shoulders and say that they
are the same. Nick
David mott 2012-01-23 08:27:27
I agree, however, Buddhism is a philosophy, not religion. No belief in god
is neccissary (according to Gotima) though some sects have some forms of
diety worship. Buddhism doesnt event neccissarily recognize the western
concept of a spirit, some would question if it is a spiritual path at all.
They may or may not be the same, some would argue. The goal, however, is
transcendental bliss from suffering, fear, illusion caused from karmas
(sin). Whether the individual transcend their evil sin through a savior or
transcend their karma debit via neutralizing the energy. Transcendental
bliss is the common result from the common conditions. It can be fairly
easily shown that these terms/techniques are identical. The difference
would be philosophical, the point isn’t which philosophy won, the point is
no philosophy is needed. Dissolve the questioner and no questions arise.
If no questions exist, all is peace. Then we can witness, wu-wei. The
opportunity is to learn from the tools proper use, as you point out. No
dissection is needed on either account, that was part of the point to the
The goal of transcendental bliss is defined in many processes, from many
aspects, by many people. The process (experience) cannot be quantified,
which is the intent. I practice kundalini kriya tantra and jnani yoga which
is the yogic sciences of energy manipulation (mind over matter). The
transcendental experience is defined completely different in those systems
as well. The practice is even different, yet the goals are the same. In
most cases, teachers of paths discourage dissecting its mechanics. Instead
the advice is to practice it and discover the results realized. It cannot
be defined, the name of a thing is not the thing, just as the word ‘Light’
printed on a book does not reveal the books contents in the dark.
Ronald 2012-01-23 08:27:50
I look at this in more physical terms. Like hate we send out by our thoughts
actually causes energy to be physically concentrated that can affect other
people, make them sick or even kill them. Repentance is just the act
of regretting that you took that action, which may actually unconcentrate
that oppressive energy that was sent out (holding on to it keeps it locked
in place). After a person dies these negative concentrations we sent out
continue to affect people, unless some action is taken to neutralize them.
So it is kind of like a score card that people create. And it’s all these
little bits of negativity that acts as little openings for negative entities
from other dimensions to act through. Which futher influences people
to also act in negative ways which futher strengthens that cycle.
So if all that could be removed a lot of the motivation to act hostile
to each other would be removed. With me these concentrations
aren’t just theoritical, it’s something I can feel. Some days I can
tell where the unhappy homes are around here just by walking
by them and feeling that heaviness in the air around them.
Nick argall 2012-01-23 08:28:21
An interesting view, given that Buddhists congregate in temples, participate
in services conducted by priests, the same priests who officiate over
weddings and funerals, the same priests who hold a special societal role in
Buddhist societies. To my thinking, these indicators point rather strongly
toward Buddhism being a form of organized religion.
I’m quite serious actually, but I can see the humour in what I said.
If you define ‘fork’ and ‘chopstick’ as ‘a device for putting food into your
mouth’ then they are identical. However, I believe that saying that they
are identical leads to a great deal of counterproductive confusion.
Also, having experienced meditative bliss, I can contrast it to the Zen
kensho experience and the shamanic initiatory experience (having experienced
those as well) and I can assure you that these things are quite different.
Just as a fork puts holes into your food and a chopstick doesn’t, so
different paths will lead to different places, however subtle the difference might be.
Some discrimination is needed. Otherwise, the food might go up your nose,
instead of into your mouth, or you might put a knife in your mouth and cut
your tongue. Buddhism teaches that one must stop accumulating karma, and
some schools teach that the karma of virtuous acts should not be
accumulated. Therefore, an equation of karma to sin is likely to mislead the potential practitioner.
Aha! Yoga remains on my to-do list. Would you say that it is the same
thing as Qigong?
Indeed. But writing ‘Chopsticks’ on a box of forks is even less useful.
David mott 2012-01-23 08:28:25
Yes, I suppose given those limited parameters, it could appear as an
organized religion. However, the doctrine must be taken into account.
Buddhists aren’t out raping grandmothers of their life’s savings.
no dude, really, I like it, God needs a personal accountant, he isn’t too
good with money. How is it he knows of every hair on my head, but can’t
remember the process of making gold?
on the contrary, if they’re the same, a lot of confusion is eliminated.
All experiences are different. The ultimate goal of true spiritual paths is
to attain to perfect union with existence, nature, life, etc. Little
difference exists between a realized Buddhist, Hindu, yogi or (true)
Christian in terms of spiritual realization. There’s several levels of
spiritual attainment. In relationship to wisdom, a person falls into one of
three categories: unknown, known and realized. Knowing is to realization as
unknowing is to knowing. Knowing a thing is fine and well, but the realizat
ion of the knowing is always beyond the surface. Many people have spiritual
knowing and have even had spiritual experiences. Any given realized master
in any given true spiritual path, will affirm that all roads lead to Rome.
Buddhism teaches that one must stop accumulating karma, and some
schools teach that the karma of virtuous acts should not be
A portion of the Buddhist philosophy is to eliminate karmas, the whole of
the philosophy is to dissolve the mind (karma causer). The mind is the
karma causer, how it’s used depends on the sect. Buddhism is a no-mind
philosophy, not necessarily a spiritual or religious path. The ‘stuff;’ we
would consider which ‘compose’ a spiritual or religious path is essentially
non-existent in most Buddhist sects.
Therefore, an equation of karma to sin is likely to mislead the
On the contrary, if one recognizes the similarities between traditions with
which they’re familiar, they will be less afraid and more likely to investigate it.
I am not sure about Qigong. Tantra is the highest yoga, the basis of the
yogic sciences, called the short path to god because of its quick
realizations and attainment. It is a science hidden behind a shroud of
secrecy and mythology using s** as a veil to weed out all but the most
earnest. Tantra works directly on the principals of energy, mind and
matter. Some call it wizardry. Most will deny the highest claims of tantra
as ‘beyond belief,’ I have no doubts to its potential from first hand
account. The full spectrum of the human condition is dissected until the
Buddha consciousness awakens. It is difficult to find a true tantric guru
in the west. Many failures of the path have created a whole s** cult around
tantra, which is actually Kama Sutra with the tantric label. Tantrikas use
the body and mind as a tool to bring illumination and realization, from
subtle mind to gross mind. It’s very mentally and spiritually challenging,
depending on the depth on chooses to go, it can easily lead to madness
because it shakes at the very fabric of an individuals being.
Just for kicks, can you outline the differences between karma and sin?
What are the ramification on your philosophy is God is all of existence?
First we must define what causes sin or karma to begin with. Is there a
static right or wrong which must be dwelt with? Assume two men steal a
dollar. Where does the karma end and his sin begin? At which point can one
identify karma apart from sin, or sin apart from karma? Assume the man is
now free of the stealing (be it karma or sin). What difference is there
between the man who has removed the karma and the man who as removed the
sin? If the cause is the same, and the result is the same, the difference
is only in the means. Except for which means works best (as you point out),
the means are really insignificant.
I by no means push my truth on people (too much), rather cause you to show
me differently or I will show you differently. My truth is always changing,
and your inquiry could be the cause of it. If you fail to see my point of
view, that is ok, these concepts are very complex, but, you must first
convince me that your truth is more rational. Seems that calling them
different only further confuses things. Can’t these be two words for the
same condition, just like I can call it atmosphere or air. How I acquire or
expel it can be done via breathing or respiration.
I can demonstrate how these experiences are the same by dissection of one’s
mind through experience. The resulting realization cannot be quantified,
which is the intent with this tread. Realization cannot be put into paper,
otherwise, everyone who would have read these texts would be realized Buddha
‘s by now. The difficulty is in expressing transcendental process on paper.
IMO, more effort should be attributed into showing the similarities between
traditions instead of their differences.
David mott 2012-01-23 08:28:32
I agree, this can even be demonstrated. The score card is held by the
individual, not by an imaginary deity. Seems repentance to someone other
than the person harmed by the ‘sinner’ is misdirected repentance.
This is where I disagree. What negative entities? What other dimensions
are you familiar with? Who taught you the spiritual mechanics of other dimensions.
I agree, sounds like you follow a bit of the Buddhist philosophy?
No mind means no karmas can be created. Additionally no mind means no
individual exists to be affected by another, transcendence of the world.
Remove thy opinion, and then there is taken away the complaint, “I have been
harmed”. Take away the complaint, “I have been harmed”, and the harm is
taken away. –Marcus Aurelius Antonius–
The statement is ‘I have been harmed’ which comes from an ego (opinion).
When the ego is removed, the complaint doesn’t arise. So who is harmed? If
no one is harmed then who needs to repent? Why repent if no harm is
Empathy is great. Though it can become a real problem it today’s world
where everyone is sending out so much energies unaware. It is one thing to
transcend one’s own energies, its an entirely different matter to transcend
Ronald 2012-01-23 08:28:38
I see it as more of a type of automated system created by God.
Looking at the energy field around the human body as an example, our
negative emotions and memories can cause imbalances that can lead to ill
physical and mental health. These imbalances can cause such large
energy concentrations that people actually begin to hear voices and
become to gain strong compulsions to do evil. In rare cases it
results in spiritual possession. Where spirit or spirits with specific
names are even identified, and a variety of paranormal events
occur near that person, as the energy concentration causes the
doorway to open wider.
So through meditations or praying people can accumulate the energy
needed to come in contact with positive spirits from higher dimensions.
Or through imbalances caused unintentionally because of negative
trauma that occurred a person may experience contact with lower
dimensions. So the difference between being psychic and psychotic
is just the frequency of energy you concentrate, since emotions
relate to frequency as proved by methods such as kirlian photography.
(Although there are Satanic worshipers who specifically pray to
demonic spirits to give them strength).
Sensitive people throughout the ages have always seemed to find relief by
going to some natural areas where things are more in balance. These kinds
of places are becoming scarce though, in this unbalanced world we live
Nick argall 2012-01-23 08:28:45
This is fun 🙂 I’m snipping as aggressively as I dare to, otherwise this
thread is likely to become unreadable.
Actually, some Buddhists do rape, and some steal. I’m talking about monks and priests here.
I’m talking specifically about the Promised Land above. I’m not sure what
you intended with that paragraph just there.
I think we’re both right.
Let’s agree that all of these realizations have a number of common
characteristics, and that many of those common characteristics (eg peace of
mind, contentment) are highly desirable.
I guess I’m not a realized master then. But I affirm that a great many
roads lead to cities, and all big cities have a number of common features.
I am not aware of any roads in Australia that lead to Rome. But Melbourne
and Sydney are worth visiting anyway.
No, “My science of the mind teaches the extinction of suffering.”
(Pottapada sutta, I believe.) Non-accumulation of karma and dissolution of
the mind are means towards the extinction of suffering.
Not Self And No-Self.
Not No Self And No No-Self.
Who is this “we”?
Aha! So your objective is to reduce the fear associated with this other
thing, and your means towards that objective is to emphasize the extent to
which it is already known? A valid choice, but I disagree with your method,
because of the results that will ensue.
Let us assume that this approach is successful, and that you encourage
people to take up the religion you have described for them. But there’s a
problem – the religion you have described is not Buddhism. Either they
won’t find out, and will be unable to master it, or they will find out, and
would be likely to feel betrayed.
If you like to eat oranges, and I would like you to try my lemons, it would
be foolish for me to say “Try this yellow orange.” Assuming you did taste
it, you would note that it is a most inferior orange. Better to let the
lemons be lemons, and use them in different recipes.
Does indeed sound like sorcery to me. Dangerous stuff, sorcery.
Karma is like a seed. When we act upon the world, we leave traces of our
passing, these traces are karmic seeds. Over time (perhaps many lifetimes),
these seeds ripen, become adult, and bear fruit. The fruits of our karma
will vary according to the act that created it – good acts will create karma
that bears pleasant fruit, evil acts will create karma that bears unpleasant
fruit. Gotama Siddhartha (the Buddha) taught that it is best to generate
neither good nor evil karma, but to abstain from generating karma, thereby
achieving liberation from the chains of desire – thus leading towards the
extinction of suffering.
To sin is to disobey the laws of God. This may be a voilation of the letter
of the law (for instance, a violation of “Thou shalt not kill” by committing
murder), or a violation of the spirit of the law (a violation of “Thou shalt
not kill” by hiring an assassin). God punishes those who sin, sooner or
later. Different doctrines vary in their interpretation of this punishment,
but exclusion from Heaven is consistently agreed upon. However, Christ,
through his sacrifice, allowed man to escape punishment for sin, provided
that man repented for his sins and made a commitment to virtue.
So, the differences:
Karma is a universal natural force. Sin is a trangression of divine law.
Karma is created by ‘good’ and ‘evil’ acts both. Sin is created only by
Karma is value-neutral and leads to a value-neutral consequence. Sin is
evil and leads to a bad consequence.
I don’t believe that God is all of existence. Nor do I believe that he is
represented in such a way in the Bible. Therefore, I do not propose to
spend time considering this question.
What question matters more than “which means works best”? Isn’t the point
of all this stuff that we are going to work out what to _do_? How are we
supposed to choose our actions if all actions are portrayed as being the
(I believe that your questions can be answered, but it would be a very
difficult and painful thing to attempt, and I don’t believe that I would
enjoy the difficulty and pain.)
And yet, there are differences between these very similar words. I tell my
friends that I broke my leg when I was twelve. My doctor described it as a
“Three-quarter spiral fracture of the fibula” (or tibia, I forget which is
which). To me, that difference is meaningless – either way, I can’t walk
any more. To the doctor, the difference between that bone and all the other
bones in my leg is vitally important.
I aspire to a certain degree of professionalism when dealing with these
issues. Just as a doctor would likely be annoyed with me if I said “fibula”
and refused to acknowledge the difference between that and “tibia”, so I
find myself annoyed when “karma” and “sin” are used interchangably.
IMO, it would be better to help people to set aside their fear of that which
Difference doesn’t have to mean division.
David mott 2012-01-23 08:28:47
hahahaa i throughly enjoyed it
David mott 2012-01-23 08:28:50
I don’t like any organized group. Rather people should cautiously study all
traditions and draw their own conclusions. The problem is people fear
approaching these paths for fear of retribution or alienation/damnation.
Quite a hypocritical indoctrination from the organizations. I don’t want to
convert anyone, I want to deprogram people. I want everyone free to
discover and learn on their own. It takes a daring person to say they’re
the same. I dare. Now that they’re the same, the claim that differences
exist must be examined. The idea they were different to begin with is
purely political indoctrination.
Thehehe, there’s basically 3 schools of tantric thought: white, red and
black. The black path is attainment for powers for personal gain and is
where wizards and what not originated. Some sects like the Aghori are
indeed very extreme, meditating naked on corpses, sleeping with family
members, etc. I’m not into all that, white tantra isn’t really considered
wizardry, it’s more energy manipulation.
This is a good definition for your purposes. A problem with modern
christian theology is the Kabala has been completely ignored, both the
written and oral traditions. The Kabala says that every action performed
creates an ‘Angel’. Walking down the street creates an angel, praying
creates an angel, etc. It can be viewed that sins are negative karmas and
angels are positive ones.
The oral tradition of the Kabala explain God as all of existence. In the
OT, JHVH describes himself as such.
Can’t JHVH be the Tao? I could replace Tao with God or Goding in the Tao Te
Ching, and get an accurate definition of the Kabalist’s view of God.
How are we supposed to choose our actions if all actions are
portrayed as being the same?
Depending on your philosophy, this is probably the goal. To view all things
alike, then act without thinking.
As you point out, the idea is: ‘what to do?’ Obviously there’s many people
with contradictory opinions on the proper way to live. By paralleling the
similarities, one can logically choose which portions most fit observation,
and act accordingly. I invite anyone to look about them at the various
paths. Christianity doesn’t create Christ’s, so the path must be failing.
OTOH, yoga creates yogis, Buddhism creates Buddha’s. Christ can be likened
to these, so what is missing from the tradition? Behind the surface of
Christianity is wizardry. Without he written and oral tradition of the
Kabala, the religion is almost meaningless. The Kabala takes the religion
out of Christianity and replaces it with spirituality.
don’t blame you.
Yes no worries, you will reach a state of no-mind eventually, then not be
Stricken from grace to persue mental play in search for grace.
Nick argall 2012-01-23 08:28:57
Engarde, David! 😉
If you present these things as being the same, what motivation do you provide for exploration?
Aha. Sounds like ‘mild sorcery’ 😉 Then again, my opinion is very
uneducated, and I do mean to look into it at some point, if a convenient opportunity arises.
Then it would be correct to say that karma is a parallel concept to the
concept of angels and demons. I’m still uncomfortable with equating them,
although I’m pleased to be learning from this exchange.
I thought he was the creator, the beginning and end? Hmmm. I suppose.
Well, if God is all of existance, then I’m a part of his self-disapproval.
Actually, due to translation errors that permeate Western understanding of
the Tao Te Ching, English-speakers are under the false impression that there
is such a thing as “The Tao”. Nowhere in the Tao Te Ching is Tao defined as
a thing that is singular, and a convincing case can be made that it should
be translated in either a plural form, or a non-counted form.
This is probably also consistent with the Kabalist’s view of God, and yet
there are still differences.
EXCATLY! “Depending on your philosophy.” Therefore, different philosophies
will have different goals and produce different results.
Mother Teresa was not a person that was virtue-equivalent to Christ?
It seems that you use the word ‘religion’ as code for ‘evil’?
I’m not aiming for a state of no-mind, therefore I am not bothered by the
fact that I get annoyed.
David mott 2012-01-23 08:28:59
I don’t try to motivate people, just try to wake them up. When people are
awake they will do their own thing, where they go is up to them. I suggest
everyone study everything. They all describe the transcendental process in
one way or another, the experience, which of course, cannot be quantified.
thing. Art, music, religious paths, poetry, they’re the same to me.
Um, perhaps. It parallels the kabalistic system in many ways. A Tantrika
sensitizes the body and mind to their own internal energies (mental,
emotional, psychic, physical). Transcendence is then learned to convert
these energies. Eventually, through controlling the self, control of the
external enerties is possible. Controlling the world is of course not the
goal. The opposite end of the tantric spectrum is black tantra, which is
pursuit of power for personal gain. I’m not out for personal gain, I want
to empower others. Everyone has spiritual powers, they just must accept and
perfect them. So many people are willing to give their power over to
everyone but themselfs.
Yes, this could be a more accurate definition. Then again, can’t demons be
concentrate negative energy? Does energy show signs of consciousness or
consciousness show signs of energy?
I like this Christian mantra: “Behold what manner of love the father has
given unto us that we may be called the children of God.”
Yes I agree. Wu-wei is probably the most misinterpreted words. I like
I dont think so, the goals can all be the same. Christ’s example can be
shown as complete detached observance regardless of physical conditions.
Jesus knew his connection to existence, ‘I and the father are one, he who
has seen me has seen the father, etc.’ He cracked at the final moment of
his death, his ego kicked in when he said he was forsaken.
IMO she is a divine spirit being a puppet and a fool for the church. The
moment she performs a miracle or liberates the cattle from her organization
I will pay attention to her.
Not at all. The purpose of religion is an entry way to spirituality. The
goal of the christian *organization* is to keep the flock ignorant, which
keeps them returning. Without a proper oral tradition, the symbology is
meaningless. Beyond the oral tradition is a ‘descent of grace’ which is
further realization behind the understanding, an attainment or baptism. The
true descent of grace (baptism) and oral tradition is missing from the
modern religion. It’s not the case that it’s absent, just misdirected. The
traditions only describe the experience of the attainment. It’s only theory
without the realization. Once the process is understood, it’s continual.
Not an event which occurs once then goes away.
nice. The tantric tradition doesn’t whip the ego into submission like many
other paths. All that is required is identification between the aspects of
self. Proper recognition of the self means recognizing thoughts as
thoughts, feelings as feelings, senses as sense, ego as ego, etc, functions,
they doesn’t matter. Get p*****, it could be fun.
Nick argall 2012-01-23 08:29:08
Well, as they say, “If it works, don’t fix it.”
“Proper recognition of the self means recognizing thoughts as
thoughts, feelings as feelings, senses as sense, ego as ego, etc,
they doesn’t matter.”
You draw some interesting distinctions there 🙂
Aha. Not sorcery then. Cool.
I find that defining a demon as a concentration of negative energies can be quite useful too.
Does an egg show signs of a chicken, or a chicken show signs of an egg?
*shrug* I don’t get it.
He might have been _doing_ an amount of detached obeservation, but that’s
not what he tended to _talk about_. Indeed, what he seemed to do the most
of, was try to reform the Jewish religion and get people to be nice to each
other. What he seemed to talk about was being nice to people.
Different religious leader, different philosophy, different approach, different result.
*sigh* You warriors. Always wanting to go around fighting things.
So, is Buddhism a religion? 😉
Yes, being angry tends to be a lot of fun. But I’ve seen (and caused) too
many of its consequences to desire more anger in my life.
David mott 2012-01-23 08:29:29
Yes, in most tantric traditions, the individual dissects themselves and
makes a distinction between these function of the self. With persistent
introspection, one can readily identify which of these energies is
manifesting most dominantly. The multi-fold fluctuations of the human
condition are just function of the whole self, which is unchanging. The
changes become identified as well as the changeless. In this process, one
comes to identify with the changeless, and watches the changes in wu-wei.
Who is to say? The people of that time had no idea of ego vs. spirit vs.
body vs. mind. The means which he taught are fairly global. Jesus taught
in parables, he even told his disciples that the parables was secret and not
evident without proper hearing. He said the disciples had ears, but it
wasn’t for the people to understand. So we can somewhat logically conclude
this. A means to wu-wie is to be nice, to love. There are many ways to
becoming the lover or existance.
Different results? from which perspective?
well, fighting things does no good, just makes it worse. I would rather
dissolve them from within.
On occasion, some Buddhist sects display characteristics of a religion, in
general, it is a philosophy of life without religious nonsense.
Peace is the goal. Often I find it appropriate to ‘kick the s***’ out of
something which is taking me from peace. Balance and peace through
detachment regardless of means. If the ego is manifesting a ‘kick their
a**’ attitude, then assume it to bring balance. However, I do not
self-identify with the changes, just watch them and assume the changeless
which is eternal. They’re play, the spice of life, not something which
controls us. OTOH, we can choose to be victim of these energies, condemn
ourselves for having them, then search endlessly for a means for
Nick argall 2012-01-23 08:29:41
So, we meet again! 😉
The distinctions I was thinking about more were between thoughts, feelings,
senses, and functions. What makes functions so special? (Special in that
they lack specialness, I guess.)
Yes… (more below)
I’ve been thinking about this. Religious teachings tend to tell people what
to do to some extent. For instance, Buddhism teaches “dissolve the self”,
Christ taught “serve your fellow man”, Taoism teaches “take control by
surrendering control”. If one assumes that practicing these teachings moves
one in the direction of that particular thing, then it seems reasonable to
say that if one is at a point of balance, studying any religion will move
one in the direction of that religion, and therefore away from the balance
point that has been found (there may be others).
Therefore, perhaps it is not so much that there are major differences in
destinations per se, but rather that the variety of starting points means
that different teachings will be more or less useful in the case of a
particular individual. And since they will carry their background
(including their studies) with them when they get to a balance point, each
balance point is unique to the person that is there, and incorporates the
things they have learned.
But you accept that what you are doing is fighting, albeit in a more subtle
(and perhaps skilful) way?
A good approach, which I make use of, with varying degrees of success. I no
longer condemn myself for being a person that gets angry, but I don’t have
to like getting angry either 🙂
David mott 2012-01-23 08:29:51
Purposeful conversation with intellect seems to be a welcome change for a
few in this group (I.e.. dolf, O’Keeffe). I enjoy talking with you,
might as well continue a meaningful conversation.
I’m sorry, my post is unclear. I was trying to express that senses,
feelings, thoughts, etc. are functions of the self. These are fluctuating
conditions, the self is beyond them, they’re conditions/functions of the
unchanging self. Misidentification is a core issue in our mindset. Instead
identifying with the changeless self, most self identify with any given
fluctuation, in so doing, experience suffering of various types.
Yes, I think your right on here. The path accommodates the seeker. These
various paths, hypocritically in specific cases, teach differences. These
are beliefs, ones personal truth. All paths point back to the self, not to
the religious symbology or means of defining the indefinable. The self is
in union with existence at all times, whether any given fluctuating
condition recognizes/accepts it or not. 🙂
to assume. By assuming all aspects, I also assume the ‘fighter’. I have
liberation from any particular aspect, and can choose to be beyond any
particular one. I can transcend thought and assume a perspective which
understands things on a level beyond the limited ego’s. After
transcendence, whether or not I choose to act out aggressions, is up to me.
After the energies have been transcended, I am beyond them and see the
situation from a larger perspective. This is very energetic, yet I’m free
of the problem to do as I see fit. Transcendence is painful in many
situations, depending on the depth and attachment to the original
indoctrinated perspective. Choosing to change one’s mind about the world is
one thing. Choosing to change one’s mind about themselves is a completely
different matter. The self cannot be fooled, only the mind. Changing the
mind toward a thing does not mean blocking our the mind from it, rather its
completely embracing it and all other aspects of the situation. From the
witnessing perspective, no harm is done to an ‘individual’, because no
individual exists from that perspective from which to harm.
Nick argall 2012-01-24 19:38:34
Thank you. I have returned from my holiday, and hope to revive this 🙂
Ahhhh. While my personal beliefs do not incorporate a ‘changeless self’
(although they do include an ‘immutable self’, so I’m being a bit picky), I
can see the merit there. Misidentification is definitely a frequently-observed problem.
Well… mainstream christianity seems to lead explicitly away from the self,
with doctrines of charity etc. While it is true that if you go away from
your self for long enough that you will find your self, the self that you
find won’t be the same self as it would have been if you had done differently.
Indeed. Although, here we seem to touch on a concept of ‘immutability of
self’. It seems to me that a certain active resistance to particular
religions has become a part of your being. I would suspect that if you were
to attempt to cease all forms of resistance in that matter, that you would
do yourself a great deal of hurt. Certainly, there are aspects of my
thinking and behaviour that I have decided that I am not willing to pay the price of changing.
Actually, it can. But it’s a difficult and dangerous procedure. (It has to
be – unless there is both difficulty and danger, the self will not allow
itself to be fooled.)
Yes. Although that’s a perspective that I think it best to use sparingly.