|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 11 2007 : 10:59:16 PM
|
Philip:
Given the fact that Victor Rodriguez/Samael Weor admitted to being completely self-educated in these areas of study, it is obvious that he based his writings and teachings on his own independent assumptions and conclusions, like you have, without any awareness of or concern about the many historical inaccuracies and eccentric theological misinterpretations that are so overtly evident in his work. 
After reading his views, identifying the core values they express, and contemplating his photographs, I believe that he was a tormented soul who became an inflated legend in his own mind, suffering greatly for his delusional teachings while he was alive, and perhaps even thereafter. Only God knows with certainty.
In any event, your posts, whether quotations of his written works or expressions of your own opinions, from my perspective, appear to be a tremendously confused conglomeration of misguided fiction presented as illuminated truth, which I find impossible to take seriously. 
Since you show little or no respect for any religious beliefs or personal opinions that differ from those of Mr. Rodriguez and yourself, it is equally impossible to engage you in a meaningful dialogue of any kind.  As a result, this thread often amounts to a one-way discussion in which your perpetual insistence on merely preaching the 'truth' of Mr. Rodriguez's quasi-gnostic interpretations, as your sole source of reference, has become untenable for me. Perhaps this is also the case for others here who find very little Spiritual Inspiration, Divine Love, or Holy Wisdom and Universal Truth in his or your teachings. Your posts remind me of the 'Paid Political Announcements' on television prior to an election. A cure for insomnia. Wake me when it's over, OK? 
I will therefore probably accept your gracious invitation to not post any future replies to your outrageous posts, as I believe that they are intended in great part to deliberately shock and offend others, probably for the sake of whatever pleasure is derived from doing so. However, I shall gladly continue to pray for both you and the late Mr. Rodriguez nonetheless! 
Light and Love to All ~
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Jan 12 2007 11:13:53 AM |
 |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 12:51:44 AM
|
Hi Philip,
Thanks for your reply about being born again. I can see it is a compicated process. Can I ask you a detailed question about this? As I see it, once the kundalini energy is awakened, it needs to rise from the root chakra to the crown chakra in all of the first 5 bodies (as the kundalini never decended in the Atmic kosha or the Buddhic Kosha). Once this process is complete, our evolution is complete and we are born again in Christ. My first question is "have I got this right?", and my second question is, "does the rise of the kundalini need to complete it's ascent to the Crown chakra in one body before it can begin to rise in the next highest body, or can it rise in all 5 bodies at the same time?"
Christi |
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 02:39:10 AM
|
What I find interesting in Philip's interpretations of the Christian scriptures is that they are not in conflict with AYP tantra. While the mainstream interpretations are leading hundreds of millions of people to nowhere..
What are your views on tantra Doc? Ie. using sex for cultivation of spiritual energy?
And david, you practice AYP tantra don't you? What are the differences between Yogani's teaching on tantra and Philip's posts about withholding orgasm? Are you attacking Philip's posts just because you have already rejected the bible based on a literal interpretation and its too hard for you to consider that you might have been wrong?
Philip, is that the King James version of the bible you are quoting? I just used the first quotes I found off google search to generally show that the bible condemns homosexuality. I don't really prefer any version because I reckon that the overall meaning is more or less the same. But any reason you prefer that version, is it more accurate? How about you Doc, which version of the bible do you consider the most authentic?
quote:
Originally posted by Doc
However, I shall gladly continue to pray for both you and the late Mr. Rodriguez nonetheless!
Don't bother. The reward for such prayer is now nil. It would have been genuine if you had kept it secret, for our Father to see in secret and reward you openly. |
Edited by - Chiron on Jan 12 2007 04:47:05 AM |
|
|
|
Philip
45 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 09:38:53 AM
|
quote:
It's crafted to make the reader lose faith in himself. And to contrast himself with the purported state of the cultic authority. I'm supposed to read that and think "holy sh1t, if I had an awakened consciousness, I'd be believing all this Samael Aun Weor stuff!". And so I'm supposed to be cowed away from making further challenges.
Philip, regarding your cultic intimidation, as you can imagine I'm quaking in my boots here.
David, regarding your theories: I don't care. Your business is your business and it is not my concern.
Remember: you are responsible for what you say I said.
quote:
Hey Philip, you haven't answered my question: presuming the writers of these old scrolls had the meaning you intended for "fornicate", namely "have an orgasm", why didn't they say "have an orgasm?".
And please, please, please don't give me that catch-it-all old line "the people weren't ready to hear it" because people were hearing much more shocking and strange stuff at those times.
And I don't want something like "people needed exoteric teachings also", because if you want to teach the people (i) not to fornicate and (ii) not to have orgasms, you simply teach the people (i) not to fornicate and (ii) not to have orgasms. There was room on the scroll for both, and you could always leave out some of the bulls-blood stuff in a pinch, if the scribe was getting cranky.
I cannot fulfill your requests David, because I already said all that. Perhaps you did not read my previous posts?
The narratives of the Doctrine are its cloak. The simple look only at the garment - that is, upon the narrative of the Doctrine; more they know not. The instructed, however, see not merely the cloak, but what the cloak covers. - The Zohar, iii.
The Mysteries of the Faith (are) not to be divulged to all ... It is requisite to hide in a mystery the wisdom spoken. - St. Clement of Alexandra, Stromateis
|
Edited by - Philip on Jan 12 2007 09:54:49 AM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 10:03:50 AM
|
Chiron:
I believe that great benefits can most certainly be obtained from correct study and training in Tantra Yoga methods. Such practices, however, like any other method, are not a 'one size fits all' answer for everyone. Tantric practice presents its own unique challenges and potential pitfalls to every practitioner, due to the use of sexual energy for spiritual transformation, and is probably often misunderstood and misused as a result.
Insofar as translations of the Bible are concerned, I own virtually every translation ever printed, and find it useful to compare the same passages of Scripture in different translations in order to get a better feel for the core meaning. Sometimes, the wording of a verse in one translation is more understandable to me than the same verse in another translation, and just seems to resonate more comfortably in my heart and mind.
The Revised Standard Version Bible (RSV) is the only translation to receive official approval and support from all of the major Christian church associations and denominations, as its translation work was undertaken by an ecumenical team of scholars and linguists, not just one church affiliation only. The RSV is generally my first point of reference, followed by comparision with other translations such as the New Scofield Reference Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New English Bible, the Greek Septuagint, and the Lamsa Aramaic Bible.
Lastly, Chiron, it is not for you to decide whether anyone's prayers are efficacious or not. Only God can decide whose prayers are heard and answered! 
Doc |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 10:41:58 AM
|
Philip said:
I cannot fulfill your requests David, because I already said all that. Perhaps you did not read my previous posts?
Within the world of the mumbo-jumbo which you are presenting us here, you have answered my rational question with further mumbo-jumbo. That I will grant you. But my rational question remains unanswered as a rational question.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jan 12 2007 3:59:46 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 11:11:18 AM
|
Chiron said:
Are you attacking Philip's posts just because you have already rejected the bible based on a literal interpretation and its too hard for you to consider that you might have been wrong?
Chiron, I neither reject nor accept the Bible, which I see as a list of books which different guys wrote (no disrespect to Christians -- I see the Buddhist and every other scriptures in the same way) in which a mix of wisdom, unwisdom, and once-was-but-no-longer-is wisdom can be found. The mistakes in Philip's posts are systematic, being derived from a large self-consistent system which is based on a made-up reality with some truths in it.
What are the differences between Yogani's teaching on tantra and Philip's posts about withholding orgasm?
That's the best part of your question, and one most worth answering. In AYP Tantra, the view of the orgasm is balanced and accurate: one suffers only an energy loss in orgasm, and a path is presented whereby one can minimize the energy loss of orgasm, and cultivate the sexual energy accordingly. Philip's position is extremist in opposition to the orgasm. The orgasm is the demon. Consistent with demonizing the orgasm, the orgasm must be (erroneously, through simplification) presented as not needed for procreation. The truth is that some men 'leak' sperm before orgasm, some men do not. (BTW, this is why coitus interruptus works well as a contraception for many, but works badly for others.) The ones who leak do not need orgasm to reproduce. Samael was probably a 'leaker', and, based on his own experience (which was enough for him -- who needs research or to ask a few questions if you are the Angel Regent of Mars?) what he presents as The Spiritual Reality is merely the reality of leakers.
The orgasm is "filthy" and "unclean" to Philip, and presumably also to Samael Aun Wenor. The very phraseology is accusatory. To have sex with orgasm is to "fornicate". The "filthy" orgasm is built up to be almost the cause of everything which is bad, in a humanity which seems to be viewed with inadequate kindness and respect:
quote:
Philip said: (my underlines)
Yes, all of these things are my personal explanations concerning these topics, of course my understanding is based on the doctrine of Samael Aun Weor.
In my viewpoint, the orgasm is a filthy ("unclean") act that eventually transforms an innocent but awakened humanity into perverse, complicated, lustful, sarcastic, envious, hateful, ignorant, sleeping masses that suffer daily but do not even know it. And I will give you proof, if you want it. Simply go up to any person and ask if they suffer. The vast majority will say "no" with confidence. Then, begin to call them names, make fun of them, tell them that they are ignorant, perverse, hate filled, envious, proud, that they are fornicators and liars. Every one of them at this point will feel at least one the seven deadly sins because those sins live within them, even if they really, really, believe in God. Just observe people. They say they don't suffer, yet just watch them, observe them. Ten minutes later they are complaining (my boss is a tyrant, i don't get paid enough, people don't appreciate me), gossiping, yelling, they are afraid (about money, about test scores, about what people think, what do I do in life?), they are proud (of my wonderful family, of my beliefs, of my car, my job, my social status that gives me the power for this or that), they are making a joke at someone else's expense, etc., etc., etc., etc. And how do many escape? Through greed and lust, things that make them sleep even more: tv, movies, games, "hobbies", drinking, which only makes them suffer more.
AYP does not have that kind of approach to orgasm, which screams of imbalance. You will not find human beings described by Yogani as Philip/(Samael?) has described them above. The experiment suggested by Philip in order to find if people 'suffer' is odious (even if it is not meant to be literally carried out). You will not find such writing in Yogani's works ever. The whole 'vibration' of it screams of imbalance.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jan 12 2007 12:04:31 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 12:08:18 PM
|
Hi David,
quote:
Reference to an earlier post by David Obsidian which has been removed.
Do you realize that all that you said here could equally well fit a description of Jesus Christ? As far as messianic complexes go, stuff like
"My Father and I are One", Or
"Noone shall attain to my Father save through me",
are really up there. I don't think anyone before or since has ever said that they are effectively God, and that they are personally the only path to knowing God for every spiritual practitioner everywhere. He makes every other conspiracy theorist with a messianic aggrandisement complex look sane.
And everything else applies equally well to Jesus Christ: the victimization issues (like I must die for the suffering of the world), the lack of any logic, facts, reason, scholarship or history. The fact that his statements fit his own bizzar logic and often nothing else, and all the rest. Incidentally, in all the images I have seen of Jesus Christ, he looks terrible. Really terrible. I don't think I have ever seen anyone look so bad. Seen "The Passion of The Christ" recently? He looks bad.
Do you see now why Yogani said that we should refrain from making derogatory remarks about other spiritual teachers, or bashing other spiritual traditions? Because if we do not refrain then it just degenerates into this kind of nonsense. A pointless mud slinging fiasco, where noone gains anything, and the huge potential of benefitting from what is a very advanced spiritual knowledge is lost.
I think it is time that we paid some attention to what Yogani has asked us to do. It is time that we all stop persecuting Philip for his beliefs, and time we stopped tearing his spiritual teachers to shreds.
If I wanted to I could do it to any spiritual teacher in the world. Any.
It is no excuse to say that we did not know that someone was a spiritual teacher. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.
It is a pointless and damaging exercise. If you do not like the way someone understands their spiritual path, then let them be. He is not harming you.
Some of us are very interested in Christian Gnosticism, and of understanding the real teachings of Christ, just as we are interested in Orthodox Christianity and understanding the real teachings of Christ. The two are complimentary. Personally I have met Jesus Christ in the higher astral worlds. It may be a magical mystery tour to you, but it is very real for me. Incidentally I can tell you it is Very magical, and Very mystical.
So why not let people who understand it, and feel they can benefit from it, dicuss it, rather than putting so much energy into undermining someone elses cosmology?
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Jan 13 2007 06:50:38 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 1:08:03 PM
|
Christi said:
Do you realize that all that you said here could equally well fit a description of Jesus Christ? As far as messianic complexes go, stuff like "My Father and I are One", Or "Noone shall attain to my Father save through me",
Yes, Christi, on the face of it, that is true. But let me explain a few things.
Firstly, I am not a Christian, and I have no position on 'Jesus Christ' at all. From my perspective, those scriptures are so old, and everything so unverifiable, that I don't know how much or how little the, shall we say, Christian-Jesus matches the (usually presumed real) person, Jesus of Nazareth.
Anything I say about Jesus of Nazareth is purely speculative. I am not invested, but even if well-meaning, what I say (even as speculation) could be very offensive to people who are invested. I mean no offense, and I have to be understood as being purely speculative: speculating on Jesus Christ is an intellectual thought-experiment to me only. So, for example, I could speculate that there was a 'Jesus of Nazareth' who got a messiah complex. Or, I could speculate that there was a gifted spiritual teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, who didn't get a messiah complex, but a record was written that made him look as if he had one. Or, alternatively, he was a wise leader who at some point spun (maybe temproarily) into a messiah complex and a record was consequently written.
There is a little more to be said about this. In the setting in which Jesus lived, if you had an enlightenment experience, it was much more inevitable that you became sacro-mythically inflated as a result than it is now. Because the society in which he lived know so little -- or nothing -- about enlightenment, but had very strong Messiah myths. So, suppose you have a strong enlightenment experience in a place like that. How do you interpret it? It's much easier to spin into a state of inflation than it is in a culture in which enlightenment is understood better. He would have been in a worse position not to spin into a state of inflation than would, say, someone living in India even at that time. And in a MUCH WORSE position than someone living in the Information Age today.
So if Jesus was sacro-mythically inflated, I see it as very much less a criticism of him than it would be for someone who would get sacro-mythically inflated today. Just like it is much more acceptable to be highly superstitious in those times than today. If I had a powerful enlightenment experience in his setting would I have thought I was the Messiah? Almost certainly.
With someone like Samael Aun Weor, two things are very different. Firstly, the record is MUCH more clear. I do know that I am talking about a real person, and I do know exactly what that person said, from looking at their works. Secondly, a man such as that lived in the 20th century and has some responsibilities to be a better product of his time. As I said, a 20th-century person who is willing to express (or cultivate) such extreme notions of himself needs to answer some 20th-century questions.
Christi said:
It is a pointless and damaging exercise. If you do not like the way someone understands their spiritual path, then let them be.
There are two major issues here: one is about AYP forum, and what is on-topic here. That is a point-of-order, and on it you may be right -- but I find it hard, very hard, to know where the border lies between 'bashing' a 'spiritual teacher' and pointing out systematic deficits in someone's teachings which are being pushed in postings by a forum member. I do think the messiah complex is relevant to the deficits of the teachings -- very relevant in this case, because it explains why he had so little need of verification of his grand theories, and why self-consistency was an adequate form of verification for him. And where is the border between spiritual teacher and not? If Van Daniken's theories of flying saucers and aliens come up, can I question them? Also I believe you have your own biases which apply a sort of 'presumption of innocence' to a poster like Philip. I see Philip do things that you might not see (like cultic intimidation). I see someone speaking from dubious sources to possibly-gullible masses. I can see that his teachings come from a person who calls homosexuals 'bad seeds' in a book called "There is a Hell, a Devil and Karma" which I find extremely questionable -- not just in the purported facts, but the manner of their presentation. I see someone preaching a lot and, maybe, someone trying to use an AYP topic as a platform to promote his group.
Leaving the question of AYP-appropriateness aside (for which my posts may be borderline) on the broader philosiphical question I feel very confident that society needs to know about sacro-mythical inflation, cultic leadership, and understand the various and many movements who have it and why it is almost always destructive at some level. The truth is that people learn by example. So I don't think I am doing anything pointless or damaging at all, though it might be out of place here. Or, more likely, what I have written may be just too strong.
Fair enough, I'll change my approach -- provided Philip doesn't say anything too provocative now, I'll stay out of here, or come in much more mildly from now on.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jan 12 2007 3:38:51 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 1:14:11 PM
|
P.S.
Christi said:
If I wanted to I could do it to any spiritual teacher in the world. Any.
Ramana Maharshi? Adyashanti? Gopi Krishna? I don't think so. And Buddha, I don't think so either. ( Some of his teaching about himself seems hyperbolic in this age, but I'm not sure inflation was the basis of it. )
Sacro-mythical inflation is common among spiritual teachers but not general.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jan 12 2007 1:17:48 PM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 2:20:48 PM
|
Hello Christi!
I think a major point that some people are missing here is simply that Philip deliberately draws criticism of his posts as a result of his unabashed and dogmatic prosyletizing. I personally support everyone's right to believe what they wish to. I also support everyone's right to openly express their beliefs as well, provided that the personal opinions so expressed are presented non-dogmatically.
However, I think it's inappropriate for anyone, whether it be Philip or anyone else, to dogmatically express their beliefs, opinions, and personal interpretations regarding any topic by saying THIS WAY IS THE ONLY WAY...THE ONLY TRUE BELIEF...THE ONLY CORRECT OPINION...THE ONLY AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION of the subject matter!
There is no 'One Size Fits All' religion, theology, spiritual philosophy, or method which is likely to be openly embraced by everyone across the boards....not mine, not yours, and not Philip's! Different kinds of people resonate to different kinds of spirituality. We are all led by Spirit according to God's Call and Plan for us. So, if someone wishes to march to the beat of a far distant drummer than I do, more power to them, and with God's Blessings to All on your respective Paths.
Hari OM!
Doc
|
Edited by - Doc on Jan 12 2007 2:48:41 PM |
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 2:39:56 PM
|
Ramana Maharshi? Adyashanti? Gopi Krishna? Buddha? Who are they and what have they done for the world? I see billions of people going hungry. But they don't do much about it. All they do is talk and some of them don't even care about this planet anymore. Buddha, out of his selfishness, has left for nirvana. He no longer cares about anyone's suffering.
Its easy, I can keep going, and it won't do me any good.
Don't worry about protecting the 'innocent masses' from 'cults' david, that's what the pharisees and the priests were doing 2000 years ago.
And remember, what you see in others, is what is in yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc
I believe that great benefits can most certainly be obtained from correct study and training in Tantra Yoga methods. Such practices, however, like any other method, are not a 'one size fits all' answer for everyone. Tantric practice presents its own unique challenges and potential pitfalls to every practitioner, due to the use of sexual energy for spiritual transformation, and is probably often misunderstood and misused as a result.
Nobody said that tantra is a 'one size fits all' answer. But the tantric teachings are missing from mainstream Christian interpretations. This is a very sad reality, which undoubtably leads to the degradation of many people. Yet have you spoken out about it as loudly as you have spoken against Philip's posts here?
quote:
Originally posted by Doc
Lastly, Chiron, it is not for you to decide whether anyone's prayers are efficacious or not. Only God can decide whose prayers are heard and answered! Doc
True, it is not up to me, but you already got your reward by declaring it publicly to stroke your ego -- as if anyone but yourself needs the prayer.
Btw, all prayers are heard and answered, before they even happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc
However, I think it's inappropriate for anyone, whether it be Philip or anyone else, to dogmatically express their beliefs, opinions, and personal interpretations regarding any topic by saying THIS WAY IS THE ONLY WAY...THE ONLY TRUE BELIEF...THE ONLY CORRECT OPINION...THE ONLY AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION of the subject matter!
Where did Philip say any of that?
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
AYP does not have that kind of approach to orgasm, which screams of imbalance. You will not find human beings described by Yogani as Philip/(Samael?) has described them above. The experiment suggested by Philip in order to find if people 'suffer' is odious (even if it is not meant to be literally carried out). You will not find such writing in Yogani's works ever. The whole 'vibration' of it screams of imbalance.
Yes Yogani presents his teachings in a very balanced way, without aggression. While Samael presents it in an aggressive and straightforward fashion which is likely to not attract as many seekers. But still, IMO the main points of the teaching (eg. withholding orgasm) are much more important than the way they are presented. It is better to have an aggressive teaching available than to have no teaching available at all. We're lucky we have AYP to fall back upon.. but that was not the case five years ago. |
Edited by - Chiron on Jan 12 2007 3:31:31 PM |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 3:35:27 PM
|
quote:
Its easy, I can keep going, and it won't do me any good.
I tried to send you an email, Chiron, but it wouldn't go through. I don't like putting anyone on the spot... But sometimes talking about it helps...
[My email is listed in my profile].
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Jan 12 2007 3:40:16 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 3:48:58 PM
|
Chiron wrote:
"Ramana Maharshi? Adyashanti? Gopi Krishna? Buddha? Who are they and what have they done for the world? I see billions of people going hungry. But they don't do much about it."
While I agree with other things you said, I don't agree with this part. Just because other people are not implementing what we see to be the cures for people doesn't mean they haven't done anything or may not care. It's possible that as we become more enlightened we will see what they have done, and perhaps what we thought were solutions could be seen as futile. There are some who believe that we can only change ourselves, not others. Then there are others who believe if we could take all the money from the rich and give it to the poor it would save all the world's problems. Others believe if only they could rule over people, they could turn the world into a utopia. . . |
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 4:01:04 PM
|
| ^ I don't agree with that part either, but that's beside the point :) The email address I used in my profile has expired.. I have got a new one now VIL. |
Edited by - Chiron on Jan 12 2007 4:09:00 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 4:01:46 PM
|
Christi said:
Do you see now why Yogani said that we should refrain from making derogatory remarks about other spiritual teachers
Christi, fair cop: I've pulled out that direct stuff I said about Samael Aun Weor above, just to be compliant with forum policy, because it crosses a line. It remains however in your quoted reply to me: you can edit it out if you wish, and therefore and you can decide whether or not it remains here to be read.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Jan 12 2007 4:09:55 PM |
|
|
|
Philip
45 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 4:55:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Philip,
Thanks for your reply about being born again. I can see it is a compicated process. Can I ask you a detailed question about this? As I see it, once the kundalini energy is awakened, it needs to rise from the root chakra to the crown chakra in all of the first 5 bodies (as the kundalini never decended in the Atmic kosha or the Buddhic Kosha). Once this process is complete, our evolution is complete and we are born again in Christ. My first question is "have I got this right?", and my second question is, "does the rise of the kundalini need to complete it's ascent to the Crown chakra in one body before it can begin to rise in the next highest body, or can it rise in all 5 bodies at the same time?"
Christi
Well, the kundalini reaches the crown, but then descends down to the heart. One rises, and then the next. Not simultaneously. And once all seven are raised (in the fire), one ether rests in Nirvana (one is born in heaven), or enters into the Straight Path which means you have to raise all the serpents again, but now on a higher octave (in the light). This is much more difficult, but only for these individuals is Christ incarnated. Even then, there are still levels and degrees. The different degrees are represented by "horns" or "tridents," like the horns on Michelangelo's Moses.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Mich...lo%27s+Moses
quote:
Philip, is that the King James version of the bible you are quoting?
I usually think King James is just fine. I stay away from new versions, especially ones that use Yahweh instead of Jehovah. Sometimes I like Young's Literal Translation in order to get a little closer to exact wording. When I really want to I'll look it up in the original language. |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 5:45:20 PM
|
Chiron:
The Traditional Eastern Christian guidelines and teachings regarding sexuality are more akin to those of Brahmacharya than Tantra, IMO. They are intended to help people experience their sexuality as a Sacred Gift from God, in a morally and ethically responsible way.
Those who are unmarried are taught to be modestly reserved in presenting themselves physically, and to sublimate the sex drive and its physical expression of sexual energy through chaste abstinence. Maintaining purity of thoughts, words, and actions is taught, in order to maintain the body as a Sacred Temple of the Lord, turning the thoughts towards a relationship with the Lord and Union with God.
Married adults are encouraged to conserve sexual energy through moderation of sexual activity with their spouses, and to dedicate this powerful energy to the Glory of God, thereby transforming it as a means of elevating the Soul ever closer to Union with God.
Specific mental and physical techniques are taught to assist both the unmarried and the married, so that body, mind, and spirit may remain as pure as possible regarding appropriate and beneficial sexual expression.
The most stringent practitioners of these guidelines and methods of sex sublimation and energy transformation for spiritual advancement are clearly monastics, within both Eastern and Western Christianity, since they make a solemn vow of Chastity upon entering the monastic life.
Lastly, I need all the prayers I can get, and will gratefully accept any prayers anyone may wish to offer on my behalf. Can I count on you to pray for me, Chiron?
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Jan 12 2007 6:14:39 PM |
|
|
|
yoginstar
Netherlands
78 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 5:59:42 PM
|
Pfeww, what a brew, this mix up of minds. But Philip, I love you dearly for giving me precisely what I needed to know. I dont think you need to worry about some other minds not getting what you are saying. To each their own path and Forum:-))
Ciao!
|
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 6:33:09 PM
|
"Specific mental and physical techniques are taught to assist both the unmarried and the married" - Doc
Can you tell us what those are? Do you have any internet links to such Christian teachings? Are there techniques for withholding orgasm?
In this day and age it is almost impossible to remain celibate with all the forces of desire attacking from all sides. At least that is how I found it. Now it is much easier but only after I have used the techniques as taught here at AYP. And.. I must say the Gnostic teachings have given me a good shake up and have made me even more serious regarding this issue.. now is that a bad thing?
As for the prayer, I'm still learning, but I'll try my best. One thing for sure, you will enter MahaNirvana before I do :) |
Edited by - Chiron on Jan 12 2007 6:53:20 PM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 10:28:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chiron
"Specific mental and physical techniques are taught to assist both the unmarried and the married" - Doc
Can you tell us what those are? Maybe...maybe not.
Do you have any internet links to such Christian teachings? No. Links.
Are there techniques for withholding orgasm? Yes.
As for the prayer, I'm still learning, but I'll try my best. One thing for sure, you will enter MahaNirvana before I do :)
Hello Chiron:
As for prayer, I'm still learning, too!  Thanks for trying your best.  And in the event that I should arrive anywhere that we'd both really want to be spiritually before you do, I'll put your name on the Pass List and Save a Seat for you. I hope you'd do the same for me, man! 
Hari OM!
Doc
|
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Jan 12 2007 : 11:46:57 PM
|
Maybe...maybe not? Well at least the Gnostics are openly sharing their teachings. So how can I know if what you said is actually true and those Christian teachings regarding sexuality actually exist? Obviously they are not publicly available if they are not even published on the internet. What use is that for us here? And what use is there in bashing gnostics in favour of those teachings which we have no access to? And why were you defending the interpretations of the mainstream churches which do not provide such knowledge?
If there are techniques for withholding orgasm taught by the Christian tradition you speak of then why not openly share them here so we can compare it to AYP and Gnosticism?
(Btw, Tantra is Brahmacharya, only an accelerated version.)
Philip, while we are on this issue, can you please tell us if Samael Aun Weor taught any specific mental or physical techniques to assist in withholding orgasm during the sexual act? |
Edited by - Chiron on Jan 13 2007 01:33:05 AM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2007 : 01:37:44 AM
|
Chiron:
Chill out, man! I was only playing with you a bit. Sheeesh!
I guess you can't really know if the methods I eluded to actually exist or not, can you? And they aren't intended for public consumption anyway. Simply stated, the Esoteric Eastern Orthodox Christian Teachings and Techniques use specifically Eastern Orthodox theological and liturgical terminology and scriptural symbolism, as well as Eastern Christian contemplative prayer and meditation practices as frequent points of reference. This material would be totally unfamiliar and alien to non-Orthodox readers who don't have the spiritual foundation of a formal Orthodox religious education. Such a foundation would be needed in order to relate to the points of reference presented. These factors, combined with your openly anti-Christian, anti-Orthodox feelings, disqualify you from receiving what you are asking for in any event.
Given your attitude and personal perspective, you wouldn't resonate with whatever I might present, and would seek only to find fault with it. All things considered, I think you'd be more in tune with Philip's Magical Mystery Tour Teachings. He may well be 'da man wit da plan' for you, Bubba, since "Bird's of a feather flock together" and "Like attracts like".
I acknowledge that Philip has made a number of good points thus far on several subjects in this thread, and has shared some authentically legitimate, historically validated information gleaned from a variety of different schools and traditions. However, these are mixed together with alot of very eccentric ideas which find little or no supporting authentication and validation in other schools and traditions. They are the sole creations of Victor Rodriguez's thinking, or of Philip's mind only.
Even so, I don't object to that at all. To each his own as called and led by spirit, and that's cool. The fruits of all labors are eventually forthcoming for all to see. As stated several times previously, my criticisms and objections have been to demands that his individual 'truth' be accepted without question by everyone here as the Ultimate Truth for us all.
BTW, Chiron, thank you for wanting to inform me, but I lived as an ashram sannyasi for several years, and am thus well aware of what Brahmacharya is and how it is practiced!
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Jan 13 2007 02:37:45 AM |
|
|
|
Chiron
Russia
397 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2007 : 02:55:31 AM
|
Just because you have lived in an ashram sannyasi for several years, doesn't mean that you know what Brahmacharya is and how it is practiced.
It is too bad that I am disqualified from receiving the knowledge you eluded to based on what you consider my anti-Christian and anti-Orthodox feelings..
Thankfully I have not received any such disqualification from Gnosticism or AYP and will gladly continue my pursuits in those areas.
So what use are those Esoteric Eastern Orthodox Christian Teachings and Techniques to us here? What use to us is your criticism if it is empty and does not offer anything different?
I'll take the magical mystery tour over nothing anytime. |
Edited by - Chiron on Jan 13 2007 06:01:59 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4429 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2007 : 07:13:31 AM
|
Hi David,
quote:
I've pulled out that direct stuff I said about Samael Aun Weor above, just to be compliant with forum policy, because it crosses a line. It remains however in your quoted reply to me: you can edit it out if you wish,
I took the quote out. No worries.
quote:
Christi said:
If I wanted to I could do it to any spiritual teacher in the world. Any.
Ramana Maharshi? Adyashanti? Gopi Krishna? I don't think so. And Buddha, I don't think so either.
Actually I didn't mean I could take any spiritual teacher and tear them down for having a messianic type hyper-inflated ego. I meant that I could tear anyones spiritual teachings appart for any number of reasons from any of a number of angles. Obviously I am not at all interested in doing this. I just wanted to make the point, that if I could, anyone can.
quote:
So, for example, I could speculate that there was a 'Jesus of Nazareth' who got a messiah complex. Or, I could speculate that there was a gifted spiritual teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, who didn't get a messiah complex, but a record was written that made him look as if he had one. Or, alternatively, he was a wise leader who at some point spun (maybe temproarily) into a messiah complex and a record was consequently written.
There is a fourth option which you seem to have overlooked. That he was the Son of God. The Messiah. The King of Kings. Always good to keep all the options open, don't you think? Especially if we are involved in a rational analysis.
Actually the word Messiah is an interesting one. It is usually translated as saviour, but I believe it's actual meaning is "annointed one".
Jesus of Nazareth also had an interesting take on the term "Son of God". This is usually understood to mean "the only Son of God" in the Christian tradition. But Jesus actually said:
"If you follow my teachings, you will all become Sons and Daughters of God". I assume someone is actually following his teachings. At least, I hope so.
On the more difficult problem which you rightly raised... How can we engage in conversation in this forum if someone can say anything as a quote from their teacher and we cannot critisize it. I don't know the answer to that one.
In the example you gave about someone talking about flying saucers. I guess if they said, "I believe that flying saucers exist because my spiritual teacher, Fred Bloggs said so", then we could say that we do not believe that flying saucers exist, because we have not seen one. But if we start saying "Your teacher, Fred Bloggs, is two sticks short of a bundle and needs his head checked", then that would be crossing the line. After all, we don't actually have any evidence that flying saucers don't exist.
Christi |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Kabbalah, Gnosticism and Christianity
