|
|
Post by clouddust on Mar 24, 2016 15:03:51 GMT
Hi all,
Just checking in and commenting on what I have been reading on this thread: It seems that in many words, throughout this thread, it is being suggested that somehow enlightenment will come and rest on our shoulders and bring truth into our conscious. I say, (in much less words), it is impossible for this happen without the surrendering to a God who is All. The teachings of Jesus are simple but not easy. Who can love everyone (your neighbor) like themselves? Who can turn the other cheek? Who can walk two miles when it is expected to walk one mile? Jesus requires us to surrender to Him, and Him alone, to be more like Him in ways we can not be on our own. Our nature is turn from God, not toward Him... but peace and rest, as well as the simple knowledge of the truth is ours for the asking if we acknowledge our dependence on Him. Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." these are the ones who recognize a need within them, for dependence on Him. As a former Atheist/Agnostic, it gives me much pleasure to admit my search is over. But this does not mean the journey is over. The journey has just begun. As an Atheist/Agnostic, I did what I wanted, followed whatever teaching appealed to me and was accountable to no one or no thing. As a person who tries to follow Jesus, I've discovered how deceived I'd been and how difficult this journey is. God is merciful and forgiving but also a Just God, (more just than our judicial system). We will be accountable for denial.
Love your neighbor is a standard for all, but if one decides to not accept the teachings of Jesus, then this "love" would be in question because the intention and its origin, is in question. Tony, as I'm sure you already know, Jesus did not go after those who denied Him. |
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Mar 27, 2016 14:37:13 GMT
Hi CD and all
Its good to hear your express you faith. In general though, I feel there is very little difference between a lot of what you expressed and the pointers of non dual teachings. When all is said and done there should be a genuine understanding, kindness and love for all beings (and non-beings). And I agree that this compassion and kindness could be suspect because there should not really be an effort to be kind. As our individual self-ish identity is dispelled we in fact develop an understanding in which compassion flows without effort. Perhaps I could conjecture that in your faith the selfish identity is dispelled through love of Jesus. To be honest, the only thing that troubles me is that those who deny the teachings will somehow face some type of judgment. If we are to truly ‘love thy neighbor’ then no one is denied compassion.
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Apr 1, 2016 22:25:37 GMT
Hi Kolomo, (and all):
A comment on your reply: Reliance on God is the greatest freedom. |
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172 
|
Post by tony on Apr 2, 2016 10:18:12 GMT
In my experience and understanding, our expression of what 'God' is is related to each person's level of consciousness. How we describe our experience and understanding of who/what we are, our place in this world, the relationship we have with that world, and, to a power greater than us, corresponds to where we are at. For example, to someone who is angry with his/her life, God may appear and feel like being a punishing Being. Belief in a evil Being (a God-opposing entity) may also be there. To someone who is at peace with the world and everything in it God would be a benevolent Being. To one who has transcended his/her 'small mind' or self-centre 'God' is All There Is (i.e. there is nothing which is not God).
Therefore, what I say, think, believe in is not a proof that God exists (the theist view) or doesn't (the atheist view) but of my level of understanding. Same applies to whether I think Jesus (or Buddha, Krishna, Ramana, Adyashanti, and other sages) told the Truth when he spoke. It requires belief and faith.
However, if I have had direct experience of the Numinous, Big Mind, Silence and Stillness (other names for God), no external proof is required. An example of this is:
Love is not something you search for.
Love is not something you wait for.
Love is not coming 'one day'.
Love won't ride in on horseback.
Your job is not to seek love, then,
but to be it,
know it as your essence,
feel it infuse your very being,
hear it drip from your in-breath,
and shimmer through your out-breath.
Call off the search. Love is You.
Jeff Foster
In my understanding, Jesus would have meant the same thing with his pointer "the Kingdom of heaven is within you...".
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Apr 17, 2016 18:07:17 GMT
Hi Tony, ... and again thanks for your response. Your opening sentence indeed expresses the varied methods in which our human perception determines our response to our current and visible world; And though it is true that our human definition of God varies according to our experiences and surroundings, God is not dependent on our definition!
I AM does not change according to the myriad assortment of human experiences, intellectual achievements or expressions of feelings, fears, hopes, wants or desires. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow; stable and unchanging.
On love . . . God is Love.
The Kingdom of Heaven is both a present possession and a future inheritance: as stated in... "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
"Let the little children come to me, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." |
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Apr 18, 2016 7:26:49 GMT
Clouddust, of course 'God' is not subject to any definition, as this is just our way of using words/concepts/ideas to describe IT, which is beyond description. The finger is only pointing to the Moon, and the map is not the territory. All the great teachers have used pointers, parables, myths, allegories and 'it looks like this...' to give us a feel for what cannot be described. Their direct knowledge of IT enabled them to point to Being/Truth, not to another object. I AM is itself a pointer to Being.
IT is also, at the same time, beyond understanding (reason, thought, belief, imagination, etc.). Therefore it can only be seen from direct experience (not mediated by mind activity): It cannot be experienced unless and until the frame of reference moves from 'me' (ego/self) to 'Me' (Self/No-thing). Stillness is the Way.
In my understanding, the rich man is a metaphor for the small mind, the egoic mind, that believes in it own separate existence and looks outside of itself for solutions to life's issues (the prodigal son who does not recognize he is already at Home). The little children is a metaphor for a mind that is still open to possibilities, that has not been conditioned, capable of seeing God/Creator/Source as manifested in Creation (e.g. the glory of the lilies in the field). The Kingdom of Heaven is a metaphor for What Is, Always, Already, irrespective of what we think of and conceptualize IT. It is Itself the Peace beyond understanding. Therefore it is always already Here and Now (at hand), to be re-cognised, re-membered, not to be gained in the future. The obstacle in the way of recognition is the unquestioned belief in a separate fixed self. It needs to die. Hence the profound sacred
symbols of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.
Salvation (and Enlightenment) describe that shift, from ego/self based understanding (me and other) to the perspective that there is only One No-thing/Reality which is all things as they happen (the Manifest, the Will of God, Creation). In other words, the ego does not get saved or enlightened, it is transcended.
Each of the Great Religions and the Great Teachers, Saints and Sages has been pointing (in very different ways, at very different historical times) to that Transformation: from son of man to Son of God. What shuts the mind down is the discovery that what I am Really is Love (what Jeff Foster was pointing to).
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Apr 18, 2016 13:13:51 GMT
'morning Tony,
I see your response as a human definition, though you say no definition is possible. God's nature does not depend on our definition.
The heart of the rich man was dependent on his wealth for happiness, security and pleasure. When the heart is not in the right place, then it is difficult to 'see.'
Children are trusting and dependent. It's all very simple.
All sages and teachers may 'point' but I know of only one who said..."I am the way..."
We are on the same page, but different books. The difference is that my non-duality is one with God; my duality is one without God. Self cannot do it alone. God is in control and dependence on God, is the greatest freedom.
|
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Apr 18, 2016 13:49:52 GMT
We can bring the different expressions of God into our own personalised life pantomine and try to follow just one, or many of the teachings, or we can deciper the following message-
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind.."
From my awareness another way to phrase that message is - "Thou shalt love What Is."
Each individualised part of God is slowly realising that the only way to effect a more accepting and loving evolution or transformation of The Total is - 'It all starts with me.'
I Am.
(This is what is termed karma, for within every choice made therein hides the invisible outcome or ramification waiting on all the other parts or aspects affected by that initial choice to be revealed, and so then for the entirety of all that to play out as life (God) as we know it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Apr 19, 2016 12:37:16 GMT
Hi bee,
God is limited to the definition.
Question:....if it all starts with us (me) then where does it end?
What IS, loves us .....first!
|
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Apr 19, 2016 13:28:40 GMT
Simply put, there is no end.
Everything is morphing All That Is (God).
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Apr 21, 2016 5:54:43 GMT
Bee, beautifully put. The Buddhist emphasis on impermanence is pointing to that ongoing, ceaseless, beginning-less and endless morphing of All That Is. The other primary tenet of Buddhism, 'no fixed self' is based on the fact that we also morph along with everything else. The Christian paradigm is that of Transcendent and Immanent Reality. The paradox for the discriminative mind is that we both die (the phenomenon of impermanence in birth and death) and don't die (the Source of the morphing is Always Here and Now, Timeless, no beginning and no end). This 'die and don't die' is valid when seen from the point of view of Creation continuously evolving (Creation and Evolution are the same thing).
Clouddust, 'What Is' means 'Everything that Is', the Whole: It doesn't love anything first or last; it doesn't have preferences or grant favours. It is Love (no separation) by virtue of being in and identical to all things. One can't know this by hearing or reading about it, but It can be 'known' in Stillness (when the thinking about it stops).
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Apr 22, 2016 13:46:19 GMT
Simply put, there is no end. Everything is morphing All That Is (God). Hi,
yes, simply put... there is no end! agree that everything is morphing but since our bodies do die, (no argument there, right?)... do our souls/spirits go on? and if so, where?
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Apr 22, 2016 13:52:12 GMT
Clouddust, 'What Is' means 'Everything that Is', the Whole: It doesn't love anything first or last; it doesn't have preferences or grant favours. It is Love (no separation) by virtue of being in and identical to all things. One can't know this by hearing or reading about it, but It can be 'known' in Stillness (when the thinking about it stops). It does if 'What Is,' .. is a person! This becomes evident in transformation and stillness, as Elijah discovered
|
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Apr 22, 2016 21:26:01 GMT
" yes, simply put... there is no end!
agree that everything is morphing but since our bodies do die, (no argument there, right?)...
do our souls/spirits go on? and if so, where?"
Clouddust, In answer to such an important question, one that has been asked most probably more than any other, I really do not know.
There is a word I find I use often when questioning the truth of anything, this word is "conjecture".
I actually love this word simply because it reminds me in my discussions or thoughts to ask - Are they being arrived at through a direct experience or through conjecture?
If I answer CONjecture then I am more than likely conning myself.
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Apr 23, 2016 11:18:58 GMT
Hi All
I enjoyed reading through the post this morning. It is nice to see how everyone expresses the “same page but different books”. One thing came to mind: “our bodies do die, (no argument there, right?)” To use Bee’s favorite word, isn’t that a conjecture? But now I see Tony already posted a nice response “we both die … and don't die…”. Couldn’t we also say the world is neither real nor unreal? All those viewpoints are mere conjecture? But now, to bring all this back down to day to day practicality, of what benefit is all this when you find yourself embroiled in an unpleasant social dilemma? Perhaps, knowing the world is neither real nor unreal but there is always the illusion of It morphing. So there is no need to be bound to any state or hammer a nail into a cloud; every day, every moment starts afresh.
|
|
