|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 5:33:40 PM
|
| On the Chogyam Trungpa note: I too have heard that he was not of a pristine character, but this doesn't bother me. Who better to write a book on ego than one who's got a big whopper? Who'd want to read a book on Sin and Temptation if it had been written by Mother Theresa? Nor does it bother me when a guru or mystic is revealed to be less than perfect. I don't think I'd have cared if Jesus sinned here and there. Hell, maybe he did! The point is that to be human is to be imperfect, and those who recognize that, and are comfortable with it, can glean the teachings from their guru wthout getting caught up in the scandal. But for those people who need a squeaky clean teacher, there is no shortage of men and women who are willing to take on the job. So which comes first - the vacancy or the filling of it? Or maybe there's a mutual interdependence: I need a guru, you need a devotee, let's hook up. |
 |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 5:46:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by meg
I need a guru, you need a devotee, let's hook up.
Great. I was starting to think you'd never ask!
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 10 2005 5:50:06 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 5:54:51 PM
|
But seriously, I agree with you 100% about Trungpa. He may indeed have the most insightful, most-worth-reading book on the subject around, for precisely the reasons you mentioned. It's on my reading list!
|
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2005 : 10:05:17 PM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~
Hello Folks,
Meg wrote -->
quote:
Originally posted by meg
I don't think I'd have cared if Jesus sinned here and there.
Some of the greatest rishi's have had their issues:
Vishwamitra had secretly considered killing Vashishta, one of the greatest Brhamarishi's of all Yugas. He started his plan,and then revoked this action after hearing praise from the same man he wished to kill.
He [Vishwamitra] became a great Brahmarishi and brought Gayatri mantra to this earth.
Valmiki ( meaning "ant hill") early on was a robber. He then went to rob some sadhu's and they provided the means for him to gain HIS grace - he brought us the Ramayana epic.
Its clear from the epics, that one can still reach this enlightened state even with some baggage and issues, once left behind. Sri Krsna tells Arjuna " no effort is ever lost" - so if you miss it this round [life] , we will keep your tab open and pick you up from where you left off when you return.
Let noble thoughts come to us from every side
Rig-Veda, 1-89-i
Regards and shanti
Frank in San Diegp
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 11 2005 : 09:29:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frank-in-SanDiego
Let noble thoughts come to us from every side.
Frank,
you got a great conversation going. And that's a great flourish to a great topic (not to stop anyone continuing it).
-D
P.S. Even I 'think I am god' sometimes, so it can't be that serious a mistake.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 11 2005 09:29:47 AM |
|
|
|
Lili
Netherlands
372 Posts |
Posted - Nov 11 2005 : 09:35:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Maybe few would type Jesus as an egomaniac, but now I am going to throw you something you may find surprising. I'm not sure that 'Jesus' did not have narcissistic, egomaniacal tendencies. Look at what the gospel says. Something like 'No on can come to the father except through me'.
He totally seems to be on a messianic-megalomaniacal trip at times. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up", "Peter, who do you say that I am",
Hi David,
Interesting discussion and all - your interpretation of these quotes is the first one of this type that I read. The thing is that as you say what we have is just a record we don't have the living person around any more. However this record (which as you say can be distorted) has been interpreted in ways excluding ego trips. For instance Joseph Campbell interprets the birth of Jesus in a symbolic way as the physical principle giving birth to the spiritual principle. In this line of thought 'Noone comes to the Father except through me' can be interpreted as noone will be able to have divine experience without realizing their spirituality whatever (of course this is just a suggestion not necessarily the true meaning). Anyway the point is that if the text is interpreted in this way on the level of symbols rather than you, me, Jesus, Peter and the Father then there is no possibility for ego trips etc. The good thing about this type of texts is that they can be interpreted from anyone regardless of their educational level. So there is one level of meaning for the Joseph Campbells of this world and other levels for everyday people and ego trips may or may not be part of the game.  |
Edited by - Lili on Nov 11 2005 10:41:23 AM |
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2005 : 08:23:53 AM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lili
So there is one level of meaning for the Joseph Campbells of this world and other levels for everyday people and ego trips may or may not be part of the game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello All,
Lilli and David, there is an interesting thread here worth mentioning. A key principle to consider in this conversation - Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.
When highly evolved beings talk to us its a challange for them to get the message to us in "packets" that cuts through the ego, baggage, impressions, etc of the individual. Couple that with all the levels of consciousness various listeners (sadhu's) may be in.
The great teachers know how to teach on multiple levels with their words. Each level of consciousness of the receiver hears what is needed or can be extracted from that parable, or stitch of wisdom. This is why many teach via sutras (or stitches) - just enough for potency w/o too many words that get hung up with the receiver. (unlike this email from me!)
Higher levels of consciousness allows one to "tease out" the truth of the great writings. This is seen throughout all great writings from the Gita, to the Upanishads, the Bible, etc. We all can site multiple sections that say one thing, but have multiple meanings.
ALL DONE ON PURPOSE. The Gita is my favorite. The brilliance of Ved Vayasa, the author, is staggering. That is, the writing passes the qualification of the 6 systems of Indian philosophy - we know these as :
Nyaya - the science of reasoning
Vaisheshika - differentiation of object and subject or (vishesha) of the 5 tattvas ( water, air, akasha,etc)+ time, direction, atman, mind.
Samkhya - different components of the object -Samkhya means number - 25 categories at the base of creation to know.
Yoga - direct cognition of an object (I am THAT) -and the works of Maharishi Patanjali for direct perception of Pure Being(Consciousness)
Karma Mimansa - modes of activity of an object and components; investigation in action and in accord with Dharma.
Vedanta or the end of the Ved - all this is Brahman - total Unity in diversity.
These 6 systems, on there own, could be considered complete, but when together give perfection of knowledge (wholeness of this and THAT).
It has been unfortunate that different sects arise and choose one system over another and hail it superior over the others. They miss the mark that all taken together delivers full knowledge, complete integration of life ( the Absolute + Relative = Brahman)
Hence when the Enlightened speak , at times, it takes an enlightened being to interpret for us!!! The sages that convert wonderful knowledge into to "bits and bites" we can consume and comprehend. Jesus was one of these folks. His teachings are wonderful and are pregnant with the truth. The Kingdom of heaven is within you …Love thy neighbor as thy SELF; I and my Father are ONE. HOW MORE PROFOUND can a jivanmuki be. Jesus recognized and rejoiced - I am FULL in my SELF - I AM THAT. That is why HE can say he is the teaching and the way - his ego is now HIS ego. There is no lesh-avidya, or remains of ignorance with him, he is Brahman.
Regards and shanti
Frank In San Diego
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2005 : 10:26:11 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frank-in-SanDiego
HOW MORE PROFOUND can a jivanmuki be. Jesus recognized and rejoiced - I am FULL in my SELF - I AM THAT. That is why HE can say he is the teaching and the way - his ego is now HIS ego. There is no lesh-avidya, or remains of ignorance with him, he is Brahman.
Frank,
so goes indeed the story of the mythical Jesus. My thread of discussion (and very point), and Lili's reply to me, involved acknowledging that story, setting it aside and asking other questions.
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 12 2005 11:25:34 AM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2005 : 12:09:03 AM
|
You have to read a little farther to keep
it in context; then it doesn't look egotistical
at all. Note: Jesus WAS the only way for his disciples,
and he didn't write it down for anyone else.
John 14:6
. . .I am the way and the truth and the life; no man comes to my father except by me.
john 14:10
Do you not believe that I am with my Father and my Father is with me? The words that I speak I do not speak of myself; but my Father who abides with me does these works.
----------------------------------------
john 2:19
. . .destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.
john 2:21
But he spake of the temple of his body.
----------------------------------------
mark 8:29
And he sayeth unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and sayeth unto him "Thou art the Christ."
8:30
And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
|
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2005 : 1:21:33 PM
|
Hi Etherfish (which I'm in the habit of pronouncing 'ETHELfish') - I don't necessarily think of Jesus as an egomaniac, but if I did, I don't think your quotes would convince me otherwise. Oversized egos are generally accompanied by a good portion of delusion. And simply stating, "Not me, but the Father" doesn't take him off the hook, as he repeatedly says that he and the Father are one. No, the message Jesus put out, at least the version that we've been fed, is that the only way to God the Father is through him - Jesus - and if that's not the sign of an egomaniac, I'm not sure what is. Unless, of course, he was telling the truth.
meg |
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2005 : 3:32:38 PM
|
Hari OM
~~~~~~
Hello Viveka(s)
I use this word viveka - as it means the ability to discriminate truth (vidya) from untruth ( avidya).
When it comes to Jesus we need to understand him a bit better. Any one that is able to profess " I and my Father are ONE" along with other parables, speaks from the level or Ritam or truth.
I cannot say I am an expert at Christianity and will yield to those on AYP with a better foundation, yet I was brought up Lutheran.
Jesus, in my estimation did not ( or is not trying) to hog the lime light as the Only Way. He speaks from the level of SELF - the kingdom of heaven in you (in all of us quite frankly).
To be Christ-like is to operate from SELF. To be ONE with SELF is to be one with the Father. To me this is being ONE with Brahman.
Brahman has to levels Saguna Brahman ( with attributes ; Ishvara, God, Siva, Krsna, Ram, Visnu,Vasudeva, etc) and Niguna Brahman (without attributes - or the Absolute) together they are Brahman.
Point to be made - "I am the way, the truth and the light" suggests that it is through the SELF that Jesus lives (the kingdom) and is the door step to Saguna Brahman.
Knowing Brahman ( says the Upanishads) one fears nothing, becomes bold, and can profess the Truth. If Jesus' statements "feel" like that to you e.g. puffed up ego, its the confidence that Brahman brings to the indivial WHO, NO LONGER, is the individual - but does HIS work e.g. "I am my Father are ONE".
All glory to those that operate from this level of consciousness, for they will become the Way, the Truth and the Light to the family of man.
" ...all this is pure consciousness" - Brahamarishi Vasistha talking to Sri Ram in the Yoga Vasistha.
Peace,
Frank in San Diego
|
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2005 : 2:23:53 PM
|
I don't think Jesus was necessarily a Jesus freak - mostly I'm a devil's advocate on this particular subject. He was one of the great teachers; unfortunately his teachings are mixed in with a lot of other, less noble truths, and it's left to us to figure it all out. Some would say that Jesus exemplifies the person who is one with his Self. Others would say that Jesus IS the Self, and thus I needn't do the work for myself - just accept that J. has done it for me, and I'm home free. It's the problem of confusing the the signpost with the symbol.
But back to ego - my favorite subject. It's not likely that J. was an egomaniac, as his path was the hero's journey, which allows little room for ego-entanglement.
Lili wrote:
>>So there is one level of meaning for the Joseph Campbells of this world and other levels for everyday people and ego trips may or may not be part of the game.
In Campbell's hero myth, the ego is often the catalyst for the journey; however, ego is dismantled along the way, as the hero battles with his/her personal demons. When the hero returns, he brings with him a transcendent vision, which is centered around THAT, rather than himself. (This is one of the problems I had with Wilder - he was at the center of his transcendent vision, thus disqualifying himself as a hero). By the time the hero's journey is completed, there is little trace of ego. Jesus had a tough life - you'd think that ego wouldn't have been one of his quirks. Maybe one of the prerequisites for being a guru ought to be a long, hellish journey.
m |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5201 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2005 : 10:48:19 PM
|
Hi Meg:
Oh, now I see better where you are coming from on the Secrets of Wilder story. It appears you have raised the bar higher for the mythic hero than Joseph Campbell did. He recognized all heroes in all stories of all cultures, real or imagined, as being on the hero's journey -- including such luminaries as Luke Skywalker of Star Wars fame.
Indeed, Campbell's first book, written in the 1940s, was called "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." This is not necessarily the returning enlightened egoless hero, but anyone who makes personal sacrifices to help advance the society he or she lives in.
Campbell also pointed out that the hero's journey is ultimately a spiritual one, and Jesus certainly fills the bill for that role. But remember, Jesus had his doubts in the Garden of Gesthemane, or so it has been written.
Heroes do what they do because they can, and because they must. Where it falls on a scale of perfection is not nearly as important as the fact that they gave all that they had and made a difference. Real heroes are ordinary people making extraordinary contributions. That is what makes them so inspiring, because they demonstrate that any of us can do the same.
And they are all around us...
That is what I was aiming for with the novel. I understand that it may not be the "enlightenment story" everyone would prefer, and that is okay. It was the truest hero's journey I could come up with in this time and place. And, of course, it is loaded with instructions on spiritual practices too.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2005 : 10:35:33 AM
|
Great topic guys.
'Jesus brings up some issues' is an understatement --- he brings up thousands.
Frank and Etherfish, your points about Jesus are all good, and well-taken, but, to a certain extent we may be talking at cross-purposes.
I am actually quite familiar with those interpretations of Jesus' writings put above there by Ether (may I call you Ether for short?) -- these are, to use a satisfactory umbrella term, 'Gnostic' interpretations of Jesus. According to the Gnostics, Jesus was not setting himself apart as the 'One-and-only Sonna God'. The Gnostic interpretation of Jesus may indeed be much closer to that of the 'real man'.
I grant all this and I go further.
Keep in mind that I am not taking any position on 'the real man'. So there is no need to defend the real man. But I'll talk, for brevity, as if I am talking about a real man.
I'm not sure Jesus is as perfect and great and developed as he is believed to be. My point of view here is even based on the Gnostic interpretation of Jesus, not the Pauline-Constantinian one which ultimately formed mainstream Christianity.....
From what I see, he sees himself as a messiah.
As Meg said, Oversized egos are generally accompanied by a good portion of delusion. And simply stating, "Not me, but the Father" doesn't take him off the hook, as he repeatedly says that he and the Father are one.
Narcissism is particularly hard to overcome, because Narcissism insidiously and consistently tells you its one major finding -- that you are So Special and Amazing. One of the keys to overcoming it is to question its findings.
Other spiritual teachers have been marred by this. Many, many highly-regarded teachers are significantly narcissistic, and many of them get stuck there because their teaching role is a hook for narcissism.
You see, you can have great 'purity', great love, wish everyone the best, want everyone to join you in heaven, and still be ego-inflated. You can be oozing with rays of Divine Love, and you can be significantly ego-inflated still, and it will show up simply because you believe yourself to be something special that you are not. Behold Krishnamurti on his deathbed telling us that not for centuries will we see an Intelligence as great as the one that used his body! Marcissism will have you leap into roles that make you special, and will have you cherish those roles.
If there is a major messiah-myth in your culture, and you experience major purification, but your narcissism is not properly purified away, you'll jump into that myth, largely because of the appeal of that myth, and how it meshes perfectly with your narcissistic finding that you are special and amazing and there's one hell of a special role for you.
By the way, narcissism itself is completely normal. We all have it to an extent. Only for some people it is constantly excessive and pathological. It's only 'bad' when it gets in the way. And it can get in the way for a spiritual realizer and hold them back.
I'm not saying that Jesus was an egomaniac. What I am saying is that his narcissism may indeed have gotten in his way, and it may have become problematic. I don't think Krishnamurti was an egomaniac either, but I think his inflated state was part of what messed up his teaching work and made it largely ineffective, despite the great resources provided for it. These are not necessarily deeply flawed people at all, they may just have needed to 'come down from their trip' and find their proper place, and for whatever reason(s) did not or were unable to do so. These reasons can include limitations in what was given to them by the surrounding culture.
At the same time, their teaching body and legacy can be deeply flawed by their mistake.
With greater purity, maturity and evolution on the part of Jesus, or whatever it would have taken to 'bring him down from his trip', I think things would have worked out better for him. Because, I believe, his 'finding' that he was the messiah would have ceased. His finding would have matured to something better --- He may have found instead that he was just a wonderful teacher.
And then I think he would have avoided crucifixion. Because if he unequivocally repudiated his status as the messiah, I think they would not have killed him.
An online forum might have helped Jesus. So might a more spiritually sophisticated surrounding culture, such as Buddha had the benefit of.
I'm not the first one to have 'spotted' this stuff about Jesus by the way. Rajneesh did too. I remember reading what Rajneesh wrote and nodding my head.
I'm expecting that people might continue to write back with alternative interpretations of Jesus -- all that is fine, provided that you don't think that these alternative interpretations of Jesus stand against my point. They don't. I'm well aware of these alternative interpretations and my point withstands them.
Hari Om
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 28 2005 6:14:04 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2005 : 11:14:56 PM
|
Yes you may call me ether- I am one with the invisible ocean I navigate in. heh heh ;)
I'm not a Jesus freak, in fact Christianity is my least favorite thing to follow. But I don't think we have enough information to judge him as being so narcissistic that it interfered with his teachings. I would think a fully realized person may be used by God to teach people and to bring them closer to God, or quicken their path, and there may be other uses we can't comprehend. If you surrender to God's purpose, it's quite possible that he may want you to do things that don't make sense from our point of view. A narcissistic person may have been just what some people needed to teach them something.
Public world view changes greatly over time. When I was a kid there was no belief in teaching a child to have self esteem, and now there is. Imagine how many things changed in 2000 years. A fully realized person should have no problem being able to intuit how his words are affecting the people hearing them. Heck, I can usually tell that. If you try different angles and watch people's reactions, you can make progress in communication. And if you've been doing this for a while you're sure to notice that some people react to forms of communication that you wouldn't expect.
If you supervise people you should know that every employee has a different type of motivation.
For some people it is money, for some acceptance, for some ego, etc. So unless you know the people who are receiving the teachings, you can't really say whether the teacher was being narcissistic or giving a perfect motivation for the audience at hand.
Do you really think that someone capable of changing water to wine, walking on water, and multiplying food would have any trouble escaping a crucifixion? I think it was God's will. It made him a martyr and is still changing people's lives for the better 2000 years later. It has helped me personally. I have received a lot of persecution because of my spiritual path, and I just think of Jesus on the cross and realize I can't complain. I don't think of him as perfect; just an upperclassman.
I just think we need to learn what applies to our own life from the great teachers and ignore the rest as we may not understand it yet. If you get a lesson in narcissism from them by all means apply it to your life.
P.S. some people believe "father why hast thou forsaken me" was not really felt by Jesus, but was said by him to fulfill a prophecy made 30 years before and confirm for his followers who he was.
Etherfish |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2005 : 09:41:41 AM
|
Etherfish said:
Do you really think that someone capable of changing water to wine, walking on water, and multiplying food would have any trouble escaping a crucifixion?
Ether, I think someone capable of doing those things would escape crucifixion.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 30 2005 09:42:09 AM |
|
|
|
lucidinterval1
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2005 : 11:36:59 AM
|
David,
I am afraid that you are way over your head on this one. No one on this site is qualified to question the judgement of Jesus. With the scant writings available and the little known facts, I'd hedge my bet that he knew exactly what he was doing. This mortal life is not the entire picture.
With Peace,
Paul |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2005 : 1:17:44 PM
|
Paul,
first thing, I have 'an awareness for you', as they say in some circles:
the phrase 'You are way over your head' is a bit dodgey as regards forum decorum. Not monstrously, out-of-this-world unforgiveably dodgey, but definitely a bit dodgey all the same. We all have to work here to keep the conversation away from what would tend to produce flames. I would try to avoid talking about the other person in that sort of voice....
>> No one on this site is qualified to question the judgement of Jesus. With the scant writings available and the little known facts, I'd hedge my bet that he knew exactly what he was doing.
Well, how can I respond to that?
The very indeterminacy and unreliability of the source (being as it is a scant historical record and a varied oral tradition) is part of what makes me feel that I should question. After all, the very idea that I should not question is coming to us from the unreliable source, isn't it? ....
You know, I had (more than once) given an 'out' for people who had strong feelings by saying I wasn't really taking any position on the real man, precisely because of the indeterminacy of the record. In the beginning I was putting 'Jesus' in quotes for that reason.
Well, that's what you get when you question mythical figures!
If I have offended anyone, I am sorry. And I'll agree to leave the Big J alone for now (and maybe forever), but if other people keep up that topic, well, all bets are off!!
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Nov 30 2005 1:51:01 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2005 : 10:01:31 PM
|
>>Etherfish said:
>>Do you really think that someone capable of changing water to wine, >>walking on water, and multiplying food would have any trouble escaping a >>crucifixion?
>Ether, I think someone capable of doing those things *would* escape crucifixion.
I don't understand the reasoning here. If you were one with God, and the whole birth/death cycle was seen as an illusion, why would you not want to die, as long as it is God's will? You wouldn't identify with the body, and life is hellish, and you know death means return to God. And if I can kill my pain, i have to believe he could.
I agree, David about the unreliability of the source. Jesus didn't write
anything down, which makes the "i am the way for all time" theory laughable. i actually heard a Christian say the other day "Jesus said
i am the way and the truth and the life for all people and all times" I didn't even want to waste time arguing with him.
Then there's Martin Luthor virtually throwing seven books out of the bible because of his differences with the Vatican, while claiming that the only true path was "sola scriptura"; to believe only the scripture word for word. Also a big promoter of anti-semitism.
Then people name their babies after this guy!!
Etherfish |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2005 : 09:40:18 AM
|
>>>Ether, I think someone capable of doing those things *would* escape crucifixion.
>>>I don't understand the reasoning here. If you were one with God, and the whole birth/death cycle was seen as an illusion, why would you not want to die, as long as it is God's will? You wouldn't identify with the body, and life is hellish, and you know death means return to God. And if I can kill my pain, i have to believe he could.
Well, maybe my reasoning doesn't matter so much -- we have different points of view and we are all carrying assumptions --- I don't believe the idea that Jesus was appointed by god to die for our sins. At least, not appointed to suffer (as if to be a 'sacrifice') to God.
But then, you seem to be hinting that he was crucified but did not suffer -- that he was smart enough to kill his own pain. Sounds more plausible than the story I was told.
I am approaching this whole thing in this way -- I'm looking at the material, oral and written, and I am asking, dispassionately, what would/could be going on with someone who went through that?
It's a thought experiment. An exercise in alternative interpretations.
Perhaps the use of The Big J was a bad idea, considering the levels of people's sensitivity (thought I thought I could get by by explaining my experiment).
But my purpose (which was a good one) is to bring out how enlightenment/purification can interact with a narcissism which may or may not become more rarified, and it can be present even in people who are renowned for their 'purity' or 'spiritual advancement'.
It may be problemmatic narcissism, or it may be fairly benign.
>> Then there's Martin Luthor virtually throwing seven books out of the bible because of his differences with the Vatican, while claiming that the only true path was "sola scriptura"; to believe only the scripture word for word. Also a big promoter of anti-semitism.
Then there is always the question, 'which scripture?' For people with a fundamentalist bent, the scripture is pre-given. But there is always human writing -- and editing -- going on. From the fundamentalist point of view, the work of editing was always divinely blessed up to some point always in the past.
The two biggest works of writing/editing are (1) putting the books together (2) taking some books away.
By pulling out seven books, Martin Luther was doing one hell of an editing job -- to produce -- The True Worda God ( As edited by Martin Luther).
Of course, people with a fundamentalist bent can always 'repair' such an inconsistency: somehow, some impure (unblessed by God) books got in there, and Luther is just correcting the error.
Yeah, you just can't reason with fundamentalists.
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 01 2005 09:47:56 AM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2005 : 9:44:56 PM
|
I don't believe Jesus "died for our sins" either. I do however think his death played a very important part in making christianity last so long and spread so far. Honestly, I don't like them "spreading the word." But I have christian friends who don't do that at all. They know I don't believe what they do, and they don't look down on me or judge at all. i can discuss any issue with them without them judging me. And that's real christianity.
Yes, I would be open to someone editing just as much as someone else compiling the works if luther had expounded something besides "sola scriptura." That's just hypocritical. And his "The jews and their lies" book doesn't set well with me although I only know the title.
I understand the concept of an enlightened person becoming egotistical.
It just shows that enlightenment is a process, not a permanent condition.
No matter how high anyone may achieve, we still have the freedom to choose to be an absolute idiot at any moment!
I think that's why some people say "there is no enlightenment" or "there are no enlightened people." What they mean is no one ever reaches a state of perfection where they can do no wrong. They still have free choice.
Etherfish |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2005 : 09:14:05 AM
|
>> No matter how high anyone may achieve, we still have the freedom to choose to be an absolute idiot at any moment!
Yes, I agree. I would only add that they may still be free to be an absolute idiot in a certain way all the time and not know it. Which is really what I am saying.
>> I think that's why some people say "there is no enlightenment" or "there are no enlightened people." What they mean is no one ever reaches a state of perfection where they can do no wrong. They still have free choice.
I would agree with this and only add that the 'doing wrong' is not necessarily a matter of choice at all. They may be holding significant errors and do not realize it.
In fact, we should expect them to hold errors. Particularly when they are embedded in the culture -- though with greater perfection they might leap beyond the errors. We have to judge people by the standards of their time.
By the way, just as an example of judging people by the standards of their time, speaking of Martin Luther's book 'The Jews and their Lies', one time when I had heard of such a thing, I would have though very badly of Martin Luther as a result. But not now. I take a more nuanced approach now, and I see that by the standards of his time, this does not mean that he was that awful.
Certainly, if he were more perfect, he would have seen beyond antisemitism. Alternatively, if he were in a more perfect society, he would have gotten beyond it.
So his views are disappointing, but within the context of an antisemitic society, not a terrible comment on him personally.
-D
P.S. 73 replies on this topic so far -- by far our longest yet.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 02 2005 09:20:58 AM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5201 Posts |
Posted - Dec 02 2005 : 10:39:03 AM
|
Hi All:
This Jesus/perfection discussion is touching on yama and niyama, and whether "conduct" can rise to perfection via inner silence and the connectivity of yoga. In fact, it raises the question of the interconnectivity of yoga in general, which is the conductivity that rises in our nervous system with a range of practices, connecting all the limbs of yoga within us.
So the question really is, how efficient a spiritual vehicle is the human nervous system? Can it be brought to the high states of spiritual interconnectivity (and conscious spiritual conduct) that we would call enlightenment? That is the whole point of the sages, avatars, spiritual teachers, spiritual practices, and even organized religion.
Obviously, something is going on in there. How far can we take it? We can speculate about the condition of "the enlightened," and it is a worthy examination of our possibilities. That is what we are really after, yes? Our possibilities. Ultimately, the answer sits waiting right here within us. With practices we will find out day by day.
So, "Where's the enlightened?"
Meditate every day, and then go take a look in the mirror. You will see it coming, or maybe not. Just keep your sunglasses handy...
Frank, this is a terrific topic you started! Obviously one of great importance to many people. Thank you.
Keep it goin' folks.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 03 2005 : 07:13:52 AM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste and Hello Ruparupa (with form and formless - your self+SELF)
Much doubt is being raised about Jesus, I can understand that. In this age of Kali Yug this is a trait of the times...
FYI - Kali Yuga is only 1.2% complete, so more of the same till we either get more jivamukti's or we go to Sat Yuga.
What I propose to solve this issue for those that are advanced, why not perform Samyama on Jesus? - use the tools you have.
A state of Ritam-bara Prajna - or unalloyed truth is in us all.[ for those that read Patanjali - see chapt 1 sutra 48] "This consciousness holds only truth with no trace of misconception" say the translator Swami Hariharananda.
Perhaps with Yogini's guidance on Samyama, you can know all 'bout Jesus from direct cognition - then all the inference/judgments will be replaced by direct perception - NOW we got a conversation! and we're exercising the pure silence in us all.
"On knowledge known as pratibha ( intuition) everything becomes known" - Yoga sutras Chap III, sutra 33]
Knowing is not limited to this "now space" ; you are not limited to this "now space".
Peace,
Frank in San Diego |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 03 2005 : 2:51:27 PM
|
David Obsidian said:
So his views are disappointing, but within the context of an antisemitic society, not a terrible comment on him personally.
I should qualify that by saying that I haven't read the book at all and don't know how 'bad' it is. If the book were bad enough, it could indeed be a very bad comment on him personally.
More to the point, I should only say that to write an 'antisemitic' book in the Germany of Luther's time is much less a bad reflection on an individual person than it would be, say, in the US of today.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 03 2005 4:32:29 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Where's the Enlightened?
