Just to raise this issue for discussion. My personal take is that blind belief and zealotry have no place whatsoever in spirituality or on the spiritual path - at least not the 'have faith or go to hell in a bucket variety' beloved of mainstream dogmatic religion.

The pain and suffering that has flowed over the centuries from the blind and over zealous application of irrational beliefs and prejudices is surely enormous. We somehow take information delivered in the form of societal, family, cultural or religious conditioning (which may even be useful in certain circumstances) and before we know where we are we are so locked into seeing things universally in this way that we'll deny reality or worse still love/our heart rather than adjust our views.

That's not to say that teaching is not important, or that we should ignore advice coming from what seem to be authoritative sources. Just that we should not under any circumstances seek to suppress our genuine doubts or intelligence, or invest belief in stuff that we don't genuinely have confidence in or experience with.

Faith/belief is something (and this is not an original view) that grows with experience. From sounding right, to still sounding right after careful thought, to working when you try it out a little, to working routinely over a long period when you apply/try it out a lot.

Even stuff that you have a lot of confidence in must remain a provisional view - variables or the entire  paradigm for example may change meaning that it suddenly doesn't work any more.

There's a very wise saying in the spiritual traditions (repeated by Gjurdieff?) to the effect that truth is not something you arrive at by positing a theory and trying to prove or disprove it. Even less so by attempting to beat others into submission by intellectual feats, assertive behaviours or the like. That this is doomed to failure as a result of egotistical bias. That the only way we can come to the truth in anything is by progressively eliminating that we prove not to be true. So that that which is left is (in this situation or context at least) basically the truth.

Blind faith on the other hand promotes a suspension of rationality, plus an unhealthy dogmatism and zealotry. Delusion in effect.  Not to mention a painful and damaging collapse of the belief system when reality finally intervenes.

We've such a psychological or fear and ego driven need for eternal or at least firm truths that it seems to me that rather than always searching for truths (and routinely fabricating falsities) we'd almost do better to instead lighten up and continuously cultivate openness, flexibility of mind and spaciousness.

Could it even be that this is the greatest demand made of us in our journey towards selflessness - towards manifesting the ability to live lightly from wisdom and compassion -  through love??

Thoughts??

I appreciate your presence here Ian, always find you very articulate. it's true from my pov there is no absolute truth, like a finite truth in the universe except death and taxes perhaps..
speaking of death and also in the same thought, PUL, or love, not everybody believes the way you do, in this thing called PUL. or love, for they have their own definition.
I like the golden rule to fall back on "do unto others as you would have done unto you."

unfortunately, again theres a bunch of us die, and only then are shown if we have harmed another and quite taken enjoyment from intentional harm. unintentional harm, such as self defense is another matter and not likely to get clobbered with guilt in that circumstance once you're on the other side.

I think I like the way you are going at it, you're aware you don't want to be making karma for yourself to clear up later.

everybody here is a peer moderator. if anyone thinks someone is not adhering to the guidelines and something is said that may be harmful to another, such as name calling, please utilize the peer moderator at your discretion, and be sure to identify the offensive post. its our board. trust yourself.

keep your center, we have a good forum where every person has a voice.

peace, alysia

[the seeker:] "religion is silly."
[dave_a_mbs:] "silly, maybe.  But what better cause do we have to inflict our personal moralities on others.  Religion is a good excuse for...inhumanity of all sorts, and if nothing else, brainwashing."
[vajra"] "yep"
_________________________________

These quotes illustrate how you and your ilk have recently felt the need to create unkind and insipid stereotypes of people of faith whose beliefs you do not understand.   Of course, such smarmy bigotry merely projects the myopia of the New Age ghetto on to devout people who actually have the integrity to read many books that pose fundamental challenges to their own perspectives.  In fact, Christianity teaches three basic principles about faith:

(1) In both Greek and Hebrew, the word translated "faith" really means "faithfulness."  This
    means that my mind can be plagued by doubts, but I must be faithful to my quest and the
    quality of moral conduct that quest requires.  

(2) "We do not understand in order to believe; rather we believe in order to understand
    (St. Augustine)."   In other words, we provisionally act as if certain spiritual principles are
     true in the hope of verifying them by direct experience. Thus, we hold our beliefs
     passsionately but provisionally--passionately in the recognition that beliefs derive their
     value solely from the potential to support spiritual transformation and provisionally in
     recognition of our need to be open to the possibility that we are misinformed and need
     correction and further illumination.

(3) We learn by having the courage to doubt certitudes that might hold back our progress.
    Thus, the father of an epileptic boy cries out to Jesus: "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief
    (Mark 9:24)."  This father wants to open his heart to the imparted faith that makes
    the difference and can heal his sick son, but he honestly expresses his doubts about Jesus'
    challenge to think outside the box.  

John the Baptist is arrested for imminent execution and, from prison, expresses his growing disillusionment with Jesus (Matthew 11).  Jesus is not fuflilling John's preconceptions of what a Messiah's mission entails.  Jesus senses His disciples' indignation at John's skepticism and shuts them up by praising John: "I assure you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist."  In so doing, Jesus celebrates the courage to doubt in an honest spiritual quest.  Of course, Jesus Himself was plagued by doubts throughout His ministry and, even in this respect, is a model for the Christian seeker.

Don

Hi everyone,

I wish to offer the following:

Belief and Faith - there are some brief, some deep, some very poetic and illumining (imo, of course) utterances at this site by a spiritual teacher who recently passed away.

Good source to search for any spiritual term by key word/phrase.
Or - Alphabetical listing of many titles by this one author only.

Belief & Faith. This query brought up over 65 items on 'belief AND faith' (see samples below)
http://search.srichinmoylibrary.com/search.jsp?query=faith+belief&hitsPerPage=10

Faith. this query brought up over 2800 items on this site re: faith
http://search.srichinmoylibrary.com/search.jsp?query=faith

Belief. this query brought up almost 250 items on this site re: belief
http://search.srichinmoylibrary.com/search.jsp?query=+belief&hitsPerPage=10

Sample

Quote:

FAITH AND BELIEF   Faith can believe everything   That we say.   Belief can increase the strength   Of faith.   Belief is pure,   Faith is sure.   Belief looks around   To see the truth.   Faith looks within   Not only to feel the truth   But also to become the truth. - Sri Chinmoy   Poem #598 from "Transcendence-Perfection" c. 1975

 



Sample excerpt from longer item by Sri Chinmoy
from "50 Freedom-Boats To One Golden Shore Part 6" c. 1974:

Quote:

Belief and faith: these are of paramount importance in our spiritual life. They play a significant role in our ordinary life as well.  60 Belief is usually in the mind, whereas faith is in the heart. Belief, unfortunately, has doubt as its immediate neighbour. What is doubt? Doubt is nothing short of poison. In the spiritual life, when doubt enters into our mind, we can make no progress. Even in the ordinary life when we doubt someone, in no way do we gain anything from our doubt. Today we doubt someone, tomorrow we try to cultivate some faith in that person, and the day after tomorrow we doubt our own capacity to make any judgement. When we doubt someone, we may not lose our faith all at once. But when we doubt ourselves, that marks the end of our inner progress. Doubt is a dangerous road that leads to destruction.  61 Faith has conviction as its immediate neighbour. We can be very happy and very cheerful when faith abides in our heart. What is conviction? Conviction is the precursor of God-discovery and Self-discovery. Self-discovery and God-discovery are one and the same. When we discover ourselves, we come to know that God-realisation was always our birthright, but we had forgotten to exercise that birthright.  62 Belief does not discriminate. Very often mental belief accepts both good and bad, divine and undivine, the fleeting and the eternal, the finite and the infinite, the mortal and the immortal. But we have to be very careful when we are dealing with something finite and transitory, something undivine and hostile, for we may be totally ruined when we play with the undivine forces that are within us or outside us.  63 Faith is very careful. It always discriminates. It accepts only the real, the divine, the eternal, the infinite, the immortal....(continued)

Hope this is helpful.

Best to all,
- u

:)

thanks U,  :) thats some good stuff to read there.

Hi U, will take a look at SC after this. I guess the point for me is that at some level we all have to be led by faith or we wouldn't bother heading down he spiritual path. For me it's somehow the need for certainties and the tendency we have to be absolute about many things that are actually fairly relative that seems to cause the hassle. We somehow have to learn to live with uncertainty and change - to maintain intention through this without getting rigid in our beliefs.

Don........ This thread is not unrelated to your own tendency to from time to time take a rather scathing and unsubstantiated tilt at the views of others, but the hope was that rather than getting stuck into a sterile row that maybe we could use it to find a way to open all our perspectives a little more.

I can only speak for myself, but if I'm to be honest I'm more than impressed at your theological knowledge, and at the way it often proves to contain perspectives I've encountered via primarily Buddhist teaching and which I never imagined were present in the Christian tradition. There's little for example that I can disagree with in the quotes you've posted above. You bring a lot to the party.

The problem however is that many of us have very bad experience of the tendency of institutional religion to demand blind belief of so called eternal truths, to proselytise, to be narrow and wholly closed in thought, to not address practical life issues and in general to behave as a temporal power structure that sows exclusion and division rather than as a teaching resource motivated by love and compassion.

I touched on possible causes of some of these issues in the last post I made in the Jehovas Witness thread. I for example was force fed sterile dogmatic and authoritarian religion rubbish in schools for 18 years. A little later I married a Catholic  (my family is nominally Protestant), and following heavy pressure from both churches (each demanded  control of the marriage ceremony and to dictate the religious education of any children we might have)  have had 30 years of resentment and inability to let go from my Mother. There was meanwhile a significant risk during the first ten years or so until the catholic church's power  weakened that my wife could lose her job as a schoolteacher as a result of this. (all it took was for the head of the school a catholic nun to choose to object) My kids suffered fortunately minor but not insignificant hassles in school as a result of their status.

I almost killed myself in the 80s and early 90s through overwork and not listening to my body by being foolish enough to buy into the wholly one-sided 'gotta get ahead' model of worldly success taught by these variously 'Christian' influences. The self loathing that follows from these traditions hammering in the message that no matter what we do we're not good enough played it's part too - it didn't matter what I achieved it felt insufficient.

I meanwhile have long standing very good friends whose education was heavily tinged by evangelical US Christianity, and who some years ago 'got religion'. They to this day they pray for my soul since as a 'Buddha worshipper' (as they interpret it) i can't be 'saved'. I can't get them free of their misperceptions because they are utterly closed minded as a result of the teaching of their church - they refuse to even read about Buddhism for fear of being 'tempted' by the devil'.

I'm not formally a Buddhist, and the tradition has it's own issues of an institutional nature, but Buddhism pretty much saved my life by introducing me to world view that worked and made sense, and to a personal spiritual path that did likewise and got me through 17 years of chronic fatigue and a brush with cancer in far better shape at the end than I was in at the start.

So pardon me if I'm a little cautious about institutional religion, especially the conventional Christian variety. That's cautious and not dismissive, because I've since discovered that Christianity has for years incorporated an almost underground strand of spirituality that (despite the craziness of much of the broader institution) too sets out a path that's wholly credible. Jesus clearly taught a personal spiritual path too, but you have to look hard to discern this.

Point being  - there's many paths up the hill, but the cows get to the barn just the same as Richard Rose said. Or as i've posted in the last few days  - language may differ, but truth is truth. We've got to be open enough to seek to get past the differences that are down to modes of understanding and expression  - rather than out of some deluded hostility seek to use them as gaps to get wedges into.

So bottom line. I don't believe most people here are anti Christianity any more than I am. Many of us are probably anti 'religion', that is I suspect if you define religion as the institutional variety. Because  many of us I think have enough life experience to have found that no matter what the tradition it's necessary to read between the lines. To take responsibility for oneself, and to allow others to do the same. In the end analysis here's none so dangerous as the zealot who presumes he knows better than you do what's good for you.

But that equally it's important to stay open, to draw from what we encounter, to not be fettered by blind belief, to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can't speak for others, but all I'm asking is that you tone it down a little. Stop the unsubstantiated attacks on writings and traditions you personally feel don't hold water - if nothing else they trigegr feelings awfully like the type of Christianity many of us have left.  Keep on educating us and opening with your formidable learning. But maybe just soften it a little, try to adopt a view that's a little more 'I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours'.  :)

Maybe  also open to the possibility that wisdom and compassion are ultimately not just matters of intellect, but primarily of the heart. And that pretty much all traditions have something valuable to say, that all are entitled to a hearing.

That it's all equally up for debate on this site, and that we all have to make up our own mind.

Please?

Greetings,

@Don

The point, where Christianity lost much credibility, was during the middle age, where fraudulent clerical dignitaries and greed driven landlords abused religion, creating a misconception called the "feudal system",
where peasants (seemingly more devout than clergy and aristrocracy those days) where held 3rd class, in order not to endanger the clergy's and aristrocracy's power trip.
The "common man" was scared off by a concept called "hell", was also told, if "he" wouldn't obey, "he" would be punished in order to fulfill gods will.
Free thinking, that was apart from the dogma of the church, was answered with Inquisition, it was the best method to keep anyone away from thinking for him/herself.

This is not the fault of religion, it is the fault of human failure, overrated self-pleasing cravings.
So why talking about lost credibility, why should one take religion seriously, when it was long enough misused by false prophets to spread their message, furthermore to please their ego?

Devout people respect the clerical dignitaries as authorities, and one who sees him-/herself in the position to govern, should have the neccessary respect for the ones, he/she is responsible for.
In addition, this responsibility has to be fulfilled, as they present themselves as worthy to be a role model for a believer. But then, this one should live according to the religious teachings, and not in favour of forcing others to obey to systems, that have nothing in common with gods word.

So it is not new-age ghetto, but proven by history!

I personally do not see faith alone as our driving force. Knowledge is the key to this recent life's circumstances, in order to understand. As wanting to know something is necessarily one feature of a seeker. Knowing how it works, knowing how to practice, knowing how to improve.
But in case, that faith is there to encourage our understanding, what about the faithless ones? Lost?
I would go that far, to say, that faith without knowledge is not possible, how could one believe in a divine principle that he/she does not understand at all?
Is it not more like faith growing with growing knowledge about such a principle? Trust growing with knowledge? Faith bound to the personal relation with god?
The apple story tells us that knowing means to deny god.
Nothing I could ever accept, or what would be reasonable anyway. Not knowing means also not to know god. Which would lead to having no faith. IMH(umble)O.

Faith is a feature of trancendental nature (god), knowledge is an earthbound feature to progress as humanbeing. So both things help to progress, not one thing more than the other. Knowledge is in fact, understanding the world, divinity has created, so why talking condescenting about it?

What holds christianity back, is the lacking will to progress, to change, to overcome this antiquated view of the believer, who creeps on his/her knees. I think that cannot be , what a god wants.
So how to redefine a belief system, that has knocked out itself?
Knowledge and belief must be connected, to reach (sounds cheesy) "salvation".

You are seemingly a perfectionist, in order to serve your beliefs/ what you believe in.
In spite of the new agers, you should also challenge your devout fellows to be insitent on progress.
It is of course one main goal in life to progress, on the level of knowledge, experience and for the believer, growing in having faith.
But one easily forgets that this lifetime is way too short to be "perfect". It lies within the human nature, that none of us is in fact perfect. But that is no disadvantage, it supports, that we are here to interact, each and everyone of us to his/her own possible extend (what lies within "possible extend, is also to crash mind frauds, that hold back progress).
No matter how hard one tries to be perfect, perfection is nothing we could ever reach, what lies in our abilities, is to look at the recent circumstances, look back in history how they came about, then connect knowledge from the past and today, to built our tomorrow. The ones to come after us will do the same.
So in fact, life is a process, and we are only one short part of it. So we can help to perfectionize things according to our ability, but the ones after us will surely find something to add, that makes it more perfect.
Our task in my pov is not to go for the impossible, perfection, we can only live life to its full extend, to create something, living life to its full extend means not enjoying ourselves (surely one part, but a minor one), but to push thinking and moral acting to the limit (of our abilities), where progression lies, is when this limits can be teared down.

The ability is given to everyone.

yours sincerely,

pulsar

Vajra said
Quote:

Hi U, will take a look at SC after this. I guess the point for me is that at some level we all have to be led by faith or we wouldn't bother heading down he spiritual path. For me it's somehow the need for certainties and the tendency we have to be absolute about many things that are actually fairly relative that seems to cause the hassle. We somehow have to learn to live with uncertainty and change - to maintain intention through this without getting rigid in our beliefs.

Hi Vajra,

I'm not sure if the above comment was specifically to me, but in any case I'll take a pov stab at addressing some good points you bring up:

We do need faith or we would remain inert. We have aspirations, and life is change too - the result of limitless individually differentiated 'forces' operating independently or interdependently (depending on one's view) on the physical plane. When one does something here, we all must do something too, either now or later, within the ever changing context we all share - the beauty and trial of this world.

The concrete rational mind cannot handle what appears as contradiction. Its very operation is inherently based on division, separation, comparison and exclusion. Therefore if  one is operating within that principle, they will judge beliefs as being valid or not, and from the viewpoint of the mind, if one 'believes' in 'A' , then 'B' has to be invalid. If someone takes that position, they are usually operating within the concrete rational mind. Many are operating predominantly this way and our culture generally prizes and promotes it and is to a large extent a result of it. We are currently a jumble of competing beliefs that separately are assumed to be not only 'correct and true', but by 'virtue' of their presumed inherent 'correctness', automatically render other beliefs as 'invalid'. Hence the strife of life in various forms.

I try to make a deliberate point of believing in everything - ie, that every belief is valid and true for someone, somewhere, somehow/why, sometime, etc... I know it may sound silly or simplistic, but it really saves much time, problems, headache, and heartache - plus, it is a nice window or door into other realities. Now, whether I have faith in any one of those many or even infinite beliefs for my own use at any particular time is another story. Then again, I could put my faith in something that would make those choices for me on my behalf and present me with what I need at any given time for my journey. That way I can have faith in 'my own' ability to progress and similarly have faith that everything and everyone is likewise doing the same thing in some way or form (One might say that that in itself constitutes a belief system. Ok.) Then I do not have to compare and judge an infinite number of beliefs as being valid or not, since they all are included in this approach, simply as possibilities.

For me then, it is less a question of 'absolute' as you say, but more one of resolute - ie, which belief is one going to use, or have faith in, as an expedient, as one's next most appropriate stepping stone right now this moment, no matter what one's goals or motives are - mundane or spiritual, it matters not.. As a matter of fact, this principle seems more easily seen and understood in a decidedly mundane context rather than in a so-called spiritual one. eg: Based on my faith, if I go to get ice cream with my friends, that I will be able to get what I believe to be the best flavor for me, will I say that my friends are wrong, stupid, or deficient for believing in choosing any other flavor than mocha fudge swirl?   ................hmmmm......................... Well, on second thought, maybe this is a bad example - ha ha, lol!

Making this choice for ourselves is not necessarily exclusive of any other's beliefs -- nor does it preclude the possibility of making seemingly 'contradictory' choices (again, for ourselves) further down the road according to new awareness and necessity -- since they (and we) also get support from the universe in exercising the same "God-given' prerogative - even though paradoxically or by necessity that choice for ourselves does become exclusive 'for one moment in eternity' as is our physical plane nature likewise to some extent. The key is that we do not as individuals have the right or responsibility to determine what will be valid beliefs for others. The more appropriate exclusion - our choice within freedom. This while inclusively allowing others the same freedom.

Belief is like a door that is potentially opened. Faith can impel through that door. Things may seem possible or impossible but real faith does create inevitability from a potential or even a so-called impossibility. If one accepts all beliefs as valid, one can certainly see into the spaces those doorways both bound and penetrate, but whether one wants to use faith and attempt to actually 'walk through' those doorways is another thing.

iow's - Faith is a principle which organizes and impels access to belief.

- u

Hi Ultra. Sorry I took so long to reply, it took me a while to get to read it carefully. Yes, I was responding to your post when I wrote about the idea that we somehow need to combine a generalised faith so that we remain motivated to progress along the path while at the same time staying fluid and relatively flexible (perhaps provisional is a good word) in our beliefs.

I agree very much with what you say and with the idea that especially intellectually expressed beliefs can only ever be provisional - the nature of discursive dualistic logic is that it tends only to capture facets of any situation, or single (usually selfish) perspectives. Meaning as I think you imply that we get stuck in a partial view of things if we grasp or seek for rigid truths - at least at this physical level of reality anyway, in that there are higher truths that are absolute. That somehow the journey requires us to keep on discarding so called truths and reaching for ever higher understandings.

You've very nicely outlined what in essence is the Buddhist view which sees this reality as a a huge network of interdependent cause and consequence - the implication of which is that we normally only ever see bits of it, that we can as you say never act without influencing others, and equally cannot act except constrained by the reality we find ourselves in.

Higher truths or consciousness seem somehow to be a matter of integrating across ever wider swathes of this reality. Love for example is a (the?) top level principle that infuses all, is the basis of all that is good. Is an absolute (and not just a relative) truth.

It's also a Buddhist principle that when faced with opposing views on anything and when looking for optimum solutions that it's best to rather than judge and discard one or the other (head for either polarity - doing this in any argument leads to a sterile did/didn't sort of argument) to look for the relative truth in both positions and seek to reconcile this by reaching for a higher integrating principle. Buddhism is sometimes referred to as the 'middle way' for this reason.

All of this leads inexorably to the view that exactly as you say that rather than rejecting traditions and views it's better to seek for the truth in them, and too try to integrate it. If for no other reason that as above truth is truth, and if what provisionally makes sense somehow doesn't fit the theory then it's the theory that needs amendment and not the data. That it's necessary to reach for the higher truth. Suppressing or rejecting the data can lead only to 'stuckness', and block growth.

It's always possible to change tack if calls we make in this way prove wrong - it only becomes an issue if for some reason we're hung up on or have built a belief system that needs always to be right, or which fears error.

Which I suppose brings us back to the issue of orthodox institutional Christianity and the exchange with Don above. There's so much in its original teaching that's as I said above so correct and so useful - that can be drawn on by anybody on the path.

But the attendant dogmatism, the fear that follows from the preaching of a devil and the possibility of eternal damnation by a vengeful God should we make even a small slip, a tendency to reject all other traditions and to block interpretation of teaching by the 'smelly unwashed', and preaching which has for centuries lost touch with the spiritual underpinnings of the religion has resulted in a culture where it can (except via some of the more mystic strands) be  so hard to access these truths. Surely no surprise, since the objective of the church has since Roman times been to assert absolute temporal control.

It also by locking individuals into a rigid and dogmatic belief system must surely block spiritual progress. Those that have achieved realisation from within this environment seem to have done so despite rather than because of it.

This is not a bashing of Christianity in general, but rather a good faith attempt to set out in a reasoned way the issues that may underpin the negative experiences of many like those of mine I outlined in the post above.

This doesn't have to be the way it is. Surely grounds can be found through respectful debate for some movement on this??? This site if it could start to reconcile these positions through that debate has surely the ability to make an enormous contribution to all our futures???

hi all, following this thread with great interest. will return later to read todays post. nice thread.  :)

just putting my little idiom  here for now:

You must see it before you believe it, but you must believe it's possible before you will see it.

I think LG makes a goodf point in her last post, and who ever it was (Vajra?) that said we have to have some sort of faith in something to keep seeking and aspiring to be more spiritual etc, other wise we would only focus on worldly matters like making more money etc.

However if "faith" means stuff like the fundamentalist Christian view that you go to Hell if you don;t have set beliefs about the natur of Jesus, well I consider that ridiculous. Like many other people of different religious paths and none (including liberal Christainity), I think Christianity makes sense if you see Jesus more as an inspirational figure and someone who tried to get people to be more spiritual and less dogmatically "religious", and in whom we can see aspects of God, rather than being THE one and only incarnation. I must also say that I find the dogma of the atonement - a kind of sacrifice on bahalf of hopelessly sinful mankind, that has to be believed in to work (thus preventing us from the Hell we deserve due to our ancestor's misdeeds), most illogical and ungelpful, and I do not personally think any such idea ever entered Jesus'head.

I don't mean to only criticise evangelical Christianity. I just happen to know it well. I would also oppose any other system that thinks its dogmas are the only ones that lead to people being "saved", and I have more respect for any system which involves working on yourself to try and be a better human being, and not judging others too much. For example, Buddhism requires little "faith" and more "working on yourself", as the Buddha specifically said he should not be worshipped and that people should not even believe his teachings without testing them to see if they found them useful.

Oliver said: I have more respect for any system which involves working on yourself to try and be a better human being, and not judging others too much. For example, Buddhism requires little "faith" and more "working on yourself", as the Buddha specifically said he should not be worshipped and that people should not even believe his teachings without testing them to see if they found them useful.
___

This above Oliver is very similar to what ACIM teaches (a course in miracles) said to be and is my personal belief the spirit of Christ channelled through a psychologist.

to quote part of it "how many teachers of god does it take to save the world? answer: only one. You.
as far as judging others goes, we all live in glass houses, so we shouldn't throw stones.

in comparison with Buddha's statement to not worship him, the Course says this towards the very end: "Forget this book. Go and have an experience, test out every thing said in these pages and see if you can actually live the principles.

The main principle is the oneness premise. I and my brothers are one. Also I am one with the father and so are my brothers.

then through out the material we can see we alone are responsible for what it is we will believe.
we are all teachers, it will say, because we are all of us teaching who we are.
another premise is that where there is love, fear cannot be.
as well at all times we are thinking daily either a thought of love or a thought of fear, but not both at the same time.
and finally we are either extending love to our brothers (both genders to mean) or we are making a call for love.

its difficult at times to tell the difference, as we can deceive our own selves into thinking we are extending love, when looking more closely (talking about me) we can see it is a fear based call for love, if there is any judgment to it about another, or about a whole group.
but underneath all the baggage we carry from our belief systems, there is divine essence, the stuff from which we are made and we WILL all make it home!

;)

Ultra said:  :)Faith is a principle which organizes and impels access to belief.

this is very good condensed thought. I like it.

Your post is well written Ultra I followed it easily. I do believe (whoops, theres that word again!) that your post reflects what I learned was <cognitive  thinking>

its kind of an art, or like the art of meditation. Cognitive thinking is like you did in your post. It is to: thoughtfully consider all the possibilities in any given situation, rather than shutting down the mind to a finite and one dimensional channel and attitude.

as far as TMI teachings go, "there is no good, there is no bad, there is just being."

maybe someone out there wants to know Monroe's short philosophy here, (Monroe founded The Monroe Institute where balance between the left/right hemispheres of the brain is the premise to aid our balanced approach to life (whether dead or alive)

I know some of you won't understand it but I myself found it a very good meditation practice whatever I find conflicting with my own views; so here it is:

your attention is a function of your energy being-creative
your mind simply responds to your attention (my personal meditation)
_____
From Monroe:
There is no beginning, there is no end,
  There is only change.
There is no teacher, there is no student,
  There is only remembering.
There is no good, there is no evil,
  There is only expression.
There is no union, there is no sharing,
  There is only one.
There is no joy, there is no sadness,
  There is only love.
There is no greater, there is no lesser,
  There is only balance.
There is no statis, there is no entropy,
  There is only motion.
There is no wakefulness, there is no sleep,
  There is only being.
There is no limit, there is no chance,
  There is only a plan.
_____

and now my last little bit of wisdom gathered from 60 yrs painstakingly...

when we die, or before we die we should think of priorities, for instance here is a list of things we will not be able to take with us into our afterlife stations:
1) your mercedes
2) your degrees
3) your next door neighbors wife
4) your wardrobe
5) your physical body
6) your diamonds and gold
7) your insurance plan
8) the house you built with your own hands
9) anything that is defined as an object of attachment emotionally. this is defined as if when you think of losing a person or a thing, it gives you a twinge of pain or conflict to consider that loss, then that is an attachment needs to  be looked at.

List of items we can take with us into the afterlife:
1) The love you have for your mate
2) or the love you have for all others, including family members
3) the love you have for your pets and animals
4) the love you have for your temporary home, the Earth
5) all these relate to how well you loved and is directly related to how well you served the earth and the people and your close loved ones.

so basically, nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists. Love is real.
fear is illusion or F=false E=evidence A=appearing R=as real.

then faith is a person who has no doubts, and when love enters such a person all doubts are gone and only what is like god remains, love.

Ian said: It also by locking individuals into a rigid and dogmatic belief system must surely block spiritual progress. Those that have achieved realisation from within this environment seem to have done so despite rather than because of it.

This is not a bashing of Christianity in general, but rather a good faith attempt to set out in a reasoned way the issues that may underpin the negative experiences of many like those of mine I outlined in the post above.

This doesn't have to be the way it is. Surely grounds can be found through respectful debate for some movement on this??? This site if it could start to reconcile these positions through that debate has surely the ability to make an enormous contribution to all our futures???
________

I should think what you have outlined here Ian, is quite possible. It is certainly desirable that Christianity and New age get together and see we are not as opposed to one another as it might appear.

I understand u had some less than satisfactory experience with evangelism.
same here. I told a protestant minister I had spoken with spirits. He didn't take it too well. it turned out well though, in the end.

the funny thing is there are some things I got from Christianity which helped me in my life, so it's not a throw the baby out with the bathwater.
some things I got which helped me I could list:

1) to have the faith of a mustard seed is good
2) it's hard for a rich man to squeeze thru the eye of a needle with his camel
lol. sorry, I messed that one up, but it means don't be attached to money.

3) If spirits are pestering you, call on the name of Jesus; there is power in his name
4) JC said "even greater things that I do will you do." (I believe this!)
5) Say you're sorry if you hurt anyone, this will free up your soul
6) the above is why confessionals were established. it does free up your energy to confess and do better, then you're not bugged by guilt and feel like a toad all the time.
7) In all your getting, get love. I don't know if this is Gibran or the bible.
8) Do not hide your light under a bushel
9. When the gal touched his robe, he said "your faith has made you whole." He didn't say I healed you. he said your faith has made you whole.
10) he said when I leave here, I leave the holy spirit with you
11) my favorite of all time: Ask and you shall receive.

if anybody just believes one of this list, like the last statement, I don't see how you can go wrong in life.

love, alysia

Hi vajra,

And you though it took you a long time to respond? Sorry - busy week.
Please note that a significant portion of this is not so much directly responding to you personally (I guess you will ascertain which do), but your comments were the source of some exploration I've been thinking about for a while - issues that I run into in my own life, and observe in others engaged in similar pursuits, and I see these issues illustrated here on this site, which you did mention specifically.

(to all) Please excuse the length. Maybe I am making up for lost time between my 1st and 2nd post - ha. I apologize in advance. Too much coffee perhaps. I am sure there is much redundancy but wanted to get this out and do not have time to edit down now. So skim and skip if necessary.

all quotes except where noted are vajra's

Quote:

It's also a Buddhist principle that when faced with opposing views on anything and when looking for optimum solutions that it's best to rather than judge and discard one or the other (head for either polarity - doing this in any argument leads to a sterile did/didn't sort of argument) to look for the relative truth in both positions and seek to reconcile this by reaching for a higher integrating principle. Buddhism is sometimes referred to as the 'middle way' for this reason. All of this leads inexorably to the view that exactly as you say that rather than rejecting traditions and views it's better to seek for the truth in them, and too try to integrate it. If for no other reason that as above truth is truth, and if what provisionally makes sense somehow doesn't fit the theory then it's the theory that needs amendment and not the data. That it's necessary to reach for the higher truth. Suppressing or rejecting the data can lead only to 'stuckness', and block growth.

Is it possible that "looking for the relative truth in both positions" still represents a qualification by exclusion? Perhaps the reconcilliation by 'higher integrating principle' in dealing with so-called 'opposing views' may also be represented by the principle of full unconditional acceptance, oneness, etc., thus rendering any seeming opposition, even a component of opposition - as unified within the complete set of possibilities represented by different individuals' choices, values, etc...

Yes, why supress or reject? Let a thousand flowers bloom as they say. I think that is my point, or one of them anyway.
However, I actually did not speak of seeking truth 'within' any person vs reject his/her methods or traditions - but to fully and completely accept the entire reality of others' beliefs, which come out of the same universe of possibilities we also have complete access to. There is a difference.

One way is to objectify/separate the reality or reported experience of another person and extract by our judgement (which may lead to negative consequences, since those judgements originate in the objectification itself) what seems viable and valid for us, rejecting the remainder (which is still part of a whole). Another way - by completely accepting the here and now totality of another person's motives and choices as being 100% valid for them, and by doing that, becoming firstsubjectively unified (oneness) with their reality as to have access to it wholly and internally. The former is done more with aspects of consciousness that deal with outer perception, logic, concrete rational, mental and reasoning process - ie: the separative mind. The latter deals with the more internal, inclusive, intuitive 'heart' energy.

A benefit of the latter approach is that by inclusion of the other's entire 'package', we also have an opportunity to see, be more aware of, and be compassionate towards the faults and foibles also held within the greater reality of other people, etc.,  essentially because we have identified them as our own in the process. In the former rational approach, because of the inherent division which is necessary to make a comparison, what is supposed to be compassion born of oneness may frequently be in actuality a subtle (or not so subtle) kind of condescension.

In a way this issue seems to involve the same discrimination process individuals use internally without need for external justification,  analysis or rationalization - ie: people just choose and then proceed onward with their lives. But  when those same processes become openly discussed, more transparent - the potential for sharing motives, ideals and methods increases within expanding communities and institutions linked by constantly enhanced and pervasive communications - we become more and more suceptible toward the perception of these externalized 'personal' realities as representing potential conflicts with our own.  Jealousy, fear, doubt, insecurity - all kinds of untransformed separative negative emotions then become energetically attached to the original rational comparison of perceived difference. It seems to be a fundamental human problem that operates individually, interpersonally and communally. Is it any coincidence that this issue has reached a fever pitch during perhaps the greatest quantum explosion in open communication and cross-cultural, trans-traditional 'pollination' the world has ever seen as globalization intensifies?

In the olden days, spiritual seekers somewhat relied on a relatively reliable model of monasticism (or asceticism) and its attendant physical, geographic separation was a useful expedient to avoid many of these potential conflicts (aside from the other obvious reasons). But now there really is no place to 'hide'. Some advanced people have realized that conflict is not the answer - either within themselves or with others. We need to operate in tolerance of, and oneness with others ideals and so-called imperfections (even in ourselves) while pursuing our own highest goals, individually and institutionally. This is one of the keynotes of urgently needed social dynamics. But it cannot be forced, externally legislated, nor will it take place on the institutional/international level without first being integrated on an individual level. So this is an urgent issue.


Quote:

It's always possible to change tack if calls we make in this way prove wrong - it only becomes an issue if for some reason we're hung up on or have built a belief system that needs always to be right, or which fears error.

This is a good point and there seems to be some of this within the subjects of the general discussion on these boards. Perfection is an ongoing evolving process and may mean adopting new strategies and beliefs as well as relinquishing unsatisfying old habits and forms along the way. We may use so much energy promoting and preserving our 'rightness', both internally to ourselves, and projected onto interpersonal or communal settings for fear of being in error - whether based on fear of failure, jealousy of others' choices and decisions equally as effective as ours, but not 'mine - the only way', or even in doubt, ie: 'Is my way a mistake now that I know of another way? Better pump up the volume!', etc. The prominent incursion of these issues into the tought-life may mean we that are not trying to improve by utilizing our choices actively as in a practice, but rather to rest where we are 'comfortable', while merely defending and reinforcing our own choices instead of really using them. In this context practice may represent oneness and self-transcendence, whereas the other way is representative of divisiveness, or assertion of supremecy. One effective, the other, not. (more on this below)


Quote:

Which I suppose brings us back to the issue of orthodox institutional Christianity and the exchange with Don above. There's so much in its original teaching that's as I said above so correct and so useful - that can be drawn on by anybody on the path.   But the attendant dogmatism, the fear that follows from the preaching of a devil and the possibility of eternal darnation by a vengeful God should we make even a small slip, a tendency to reject all other traditions and to block interpretation of teaching by the 'smelly unwashed', and preaching which has for centuries lost touch with the spiritual underpinnings of the religion has resulted in a culture where it can (except via some of the more mystic strands) be  so hard to access these truths. Surely no surprise, since the objective of the church has since Roman times been to assert absolute temporal control. It also by locking individuals into a rigid and dogmatic belief system must surely block spiritual progress. Those that have achieved realisation from within this environment seem to have done so despite rather than because of it.

Frankly, I do not see how anyone is locked in. There is nothing but freedom. And if there is freedom, why use it to direct energy to institutions or attitudes which are not progressive in our view, whatever that view is?


Quote:

"Those that have achieved realisation from within this environment seem to have done so despite rather than because of it. ..."

I think that what you describe here is more or less the entire game! It is the play of life itself in all its evolving forms within the ignorance of the physical, and these travails are not limited to the inevitable distortions of the Christian Church, Islam, or even Bruce Moen! They are quite available in our own consciousness, yet they may be reflected in those outer forms for us to see. That does not mean we must become attached to them, even in a negative way, once we are fortunate enough to see them, move beyond them, and then again see them in the rearview mirror.


Quote:

This is not a bashing of Christianity in general, but rather a good faith attempt to set out in a reasoned way the issues that may underpin the negative experiences of many like those of mine I outlined in the post above. This doesn't have to be the way it is. Surely grounds can be found through respectful debate for some movement on this??? This site in reconciling these positions through that debate has surely the ability to make an enormous contribution to all our futures???

I think you and I have already addressed many of these points in our previous discussion - you quite eloquently, btw.

No, I don't think you are 'bashing Christianity' - maybe you are concerned about some narrow principle that is not only endemic to Christianity (although evidently not uncommon in our culture) but of ego projection by people of any tradition who attempt to impose one thing or another that appears to 'impinge' on personal and group dynamics. It is an issue that comes up, no doubt.
Yet,
I personally do not see the need to have any 'debate' in this matter per se, since there is really nothing to reconcile, and the requisite 'enormous contributions to everyones' futures reside within themselves already, totally accessible - with or without the so-called perversions of Christianity, represented by any other person or institution, on or off this forum. That is the theory anyway.

When people assert their 'superior, exclusive, or negative and fear based beliefs', I do take note, however. There is a difference between like-minded seekers joining together in common purpose, as in sharing resources or experiences for inspiration, vs. someone trying very hard to convince themselves of their own experience or theory by aggressively 'trying to convince' others - as if to demand permission to believe themselves by 'authority of consensus'. This particular approach turns out to be not so inspiring in case you haven't noticed. Of course - their assertion HAS TO BE futile, since it is intrinsically self-limiting, hence their frustration, and why they try so hard. It is even sometimes painful to witness. I do admire the devotion though. But maybe in that case we just need the courage and conviction to channel and temper that fervent devotion into doing the requisite work to evoke and promote the practical testing that genuine spirituality demands. It's hard work but somebody has to do it - right? Without that crucial interface with actual practice, devotion may turn into fanaticism - an incomplete, unintegrated, imbalanced and mostly mentalized form that must use its life energy to 'practice' on others as a projected proxy, substitute, diversion, etc.

The same principle operates within corrupt institutions which resort to inauthentic means (like fear or false pride) to promote their survival. They want converts to promote continuity even if the original integrity of purpose is debased in the process - as if the sole purpose is nothing but self-perpetuation no matter what the form. (common problem with institutions of any kind, not only religious). No wonder our culture has a fascination with vampirism.

How a vigorous and condescending proselytizing contributes to enlightenment I have always failed to see. On the other hand, I have sometimes observed that the tendency to do this is noticably diminished in those who are relatively 'successful' in some ongoing regular practice, especially like that of meditation or anything which deliberately and dynamically increases receptivity, vs the ego based self reinforcement/projection that promotes separativity, etc.. They seem also to have been able to integrate various related qualities (like humility), that generally mitigate against these kinds of ego disturbances, even when they appear to vacillate or struggle with it from time to time. Like with any practice, consistency is both a desired goal and a basis for further progress. So, onward ____________soldiers (please insert any tradition, guru, etc.)....

This divisivness born of fear, presumed superiority, etc.,  is a real  error in seeking, but it can and may be ignored in others, since one does not have to participate in another's error. Have you ever studied water safety & life-saving? The most stressed point is: "Don't ever let a drowning person pull you down."  Such a person is drowning in a sense - in their own doubt (the personality compensation of self-doubt is pride), fear, insecurity, etc..We can make suggestions, pray for our receptivity to higher values - like throwing a line, but at some point, we have to want to grab it ourselves.

Specific to your above mentioned concerns, and also touched on indirectly above, I have also been completely bewildered by so-called spiritual seekers devaluing others' spiritual search/ideals/proponents/leaders all in the name of Christ's Universal Love. Is there anything more ridiculous? I am wanting to believe that there are also many followers of the Christ who likewise feel puzzlement (and disappointment?) over this.  It is an old addage that "A master is known by his disciples." Should that be true, it would be something for everyone following any tradition to reflect on in this context. Also, if anything, this attitude does not indicate any 'advanced awareness', but probably is indicative of precisely the contrary. Granted, it may be distasteful, but it can be ignored. (uh oh, there's my door bell ringing.....)

People have choices. Seekers have choices. One who is seeking Truth, God or Whatever does not have to submit to the various so-called negative manifestations of any orthodox institutional religion, which as an institution may not be monolithic, as it is existing in numerous forms, degrees of usefulness for many purposes, for all kinds of people in all stages of spiritual evolution.. Why deliberately engage another's deficiencies when we have our own to deal with?

If they wish to be mired in some apparent perversion excused and promoted by ignorance, which might or might not be an apt  characterization, they can do that and it will not negate our, or another's search for truth. They themselves might think they are living a most inspired life, and good for them - why is that not true? - they will eventually achieve and embody the consequences of their choices according to the intensity and integrity of their pursuit, including the karma for misleading or harming others if that is involved. They may adjust their beliefs according to their needs as they go too, and if they don't, then....there they are, where they are. They have a choice and we have a choice. Again, one needn't go to Christianity for this - it is everywhere and within too - both the 'good' and the 'bad', and why discrimination and self-examination is valuable to acquire, increase and use in the appropriate way -- within.

Aside from any one religion - the whole body of religion and its general operating structure may itself not continue to be an appropriate vehicle for increasing numbers of people to spiritually evolve within anyway.  So, as people go forward they may step away from what does not serve their needs, just as anyone makes any transition to more fulfilling purpose and newer growth experiences. Then again some may persist in, revert to, or convert to older traditions and conventions that may be suitable for them.

Seekers can also completely change traditions as you have done and I admire that because I know of the attendant consequences - it is not easy. However, to make a big move like that which represents a serious committment, if for meritorious reasons ie: an authentic seeking, is meritorious. Many seekers need the structure of a group association or 'institution' that provides the cohesion, regularity and reinforcement of like-minded people within a common orientation and leadership. It facilitates growth. Only a century ago it would have been much more difficult to make that choice if you were even able to be aware of it at all, so you are fortunate that you were able to recognize your need and then do something about it. It is a kind of Grace. You made a necessary change to something more appropriate for your needs. So why look back? Why be drawn back into the old energy when everything you needed to remove yourself from the previous unaspiring situation has been decided on and affected?

As humanity progresses, many unformed, partially formed, deformed and outright obsolete forms will have to be released, bypassed, or ignored by wise people if they want to progress. If anything has the potential to 'block spiritual progress' as you say, it is these types of debates about the 'relative objective validity', or negative potential of any personal obsolete ideals choices and methods - of which debate only serves to preserve, energize, and something more....These debates draw people back into their unsatisfying past and fosters guilt, bitterness and resentment about what in the spiritual life amounts to an occassional falling down while learning to be a proficient traveler. The same author who's writing I recommended previously in this thread - Sri Chinmoy - also said,


Quote:

"Failure is not falling down. Failure is the desire to remain where we have fallen."

I think this touches on the issue at hand.
We see this phenomenon a lot. Seekers are fortunate to be able move on, to progress, but then they energetically remain attached in some part of their psyche to older previous growth experiences that in retrospect they identify with 'bad labels', and continue to carry around with them as dead weight. Instead of being joyful about their progress, they get bitter and resentful about what?... Their very transcendence of their own ignorance. Because they have moved on to some degree, it becomes enough 'distance' to see/compare the 'deficiencies' of choices and associations they made 1, 2, 10, 20 or 40 years ago. Some common ones among seekers are: The 'bad false guru', the 'corrupt religious institution'. We've all been there. More common and among non-seekers are the 'big bad evil government', 'evil public school system', 'my dysfunctional family', or the 'parent from hell'. We've all done that.

We all have a starting point in life, we all go through experiences that most likely embody some degree of unsatisfying imperfection, and our institutions are the collective embodiment of our aggregated individual experiences and consequent consciousness -- and we all grow through it and in spite of it, and why it is so important to transform our individual consciousness. 'Amazing Grace' indeed. It is simply the field of experience to work through, and when something is accomplished, then why remain attached? Just move on. Especially for truth/God seekers it is important to move forward and not look back. One can see how the inability to release old 'negative experience', even obsessional retention in varying degrees might be contributory to debilities which can persist for lifetimes in physical and non-physical dimensions. I believe some of the intent of this website is for the purpose of dealing with these issues so I think this discussion is very pertinent. The past only embodies lesser perfection. Note how that is stated. This is not 'new age relativism', but an extremely practical paradigm for progress that allows for the acceptance of aspects of life that need transformation. Nothing can be transformed if it is not first accepted. Nothing can be accepted if it is divided from us. Also, this is not an advocacy of an unsympathic or uncompassionate life - just detachment from our own negativity (or projected negativity, when we deny the validity of others' experiences, resources, choices ie, the same 'mistakes' our guidance allowed us to make) .

Ha! You thought this was the end? :-/ .........to be continued.......

...........continued from response to vajra.............

Seekers must be vigilant if they want to proceed. There is a need to realize that once we make a conscious decision to move forward, we are not responsible for anyone else's similar God-given decision or how it unfolds. This needs to be a conscious operative principle in a real seeker's life.   iow's - Once one commits to 'the Path' in whatever form, God takes care of the seeker's life-guidance - this is true in regular life in a general way, but it is more specific, or a different kind of directed attention while on the Path. Therefore not our business - everyone else who is seeking, either nominally in the case of 'insincere' or 'corrupt' versions (again, our own 'objective' assessment), or functionally in the case of 'genuine forms' (again, not our personal business unless we want to borrow inspiration or information). Actually why even make the distinction? I don't think God does since it is all part of the same process. In fact, if most seekers are honest with themselves, they will immediately see that they cover both categories, even on a minute to minute basis.

Another problem brought up by this issue is that seekers often substitute outer form for inner content, then compare and rank appearances which is a mistake -
The quality of appearances or outer forms presented by guidance are often a compassionate presentation for our benefit, so we can see and recognize content according to our own conditioned symbol set, whether racial/genetic, cultural, geographic, intellectual, etc. - and to have access to very specific needs at very specific times. God and His Instruments appear in many forms, yet are essentially one - and the form we do the best with right now is the one that is given. Especially true or I should say important to see this in dealing with the issue of divine presence on earth in the forms of various Teachers, and teachers - all essentially the same for our purpose - only the one that is best for us right now is the one we get right now, even collectively.  That doesn't mean that any way or teacher is necessarily superior just because they are most appropriate or expedient for us right now, they just are for us. For someone else, maybe this is not the case. That is the real relativism.  The Divine exists in all. If one experiences a contact or evidences an interest (which is the same as a contact) in a specific form, it is for reasons of expediency according to the necessity of the seeker. Otherwise there would be no way to recognize and work with essential energies and experiences. Many people who go on endlessly about the superiority of one Teacher or another, would never even recognize them if they did not appear in the form that was already pre -established. There are stories in India about Shiva taking the form of a vagrant or untouchable, just to test the sincerity or integrity of a devotee. According to legend most fail.

The specific form used for this purpose in no way renders others' similar experiences as invalid. This is why it makes no sense, nor does it benefit anyone's search for truth - in fact it severely hinders it - to deny others experiences by exclusion, including the exclusion by a professed superiority, or by devaluing and invalidating others methods, choices, leaders - ie: Chosen Ideals. If someone who calls themselves a truth seeker and God lover is saying that X is all, and consequently Y is not, then they are quite stuck in a self-referrent, self-generated comparison that takes the seeker away from the inner content, which is the true means, and focusses on the outer form as a means, which is an error.

Faith in its very nature is blind -  it has to be - for if it were not, it would simply be a reasoned conclusion dervied from observed phenomenon, and that is not faith. But neither is it real faith, a conviction originating from the part of us that is the Knower of the Real - which mutually excludes others' by dint of its own presence in any one's life. It would have to be something else then - perhaps fanaticism - since the real faith is based on the essential unity of divinity.

Both institutions and individuals are the results of countless choices - the embodiment of accummulated choices all contributing to the present consciousness. As they change, we may find ourselves no longer in alignment with their motives, means and manifestations. What is not urgently needed is to fret about, revitalize and relive our own and others' unsatisfying past - or concern ourselves about others' present by finding fault, or by asserting our own superiority. If we choose to ignore what is unsatisfying and only pursue what creates joy, progress, and satisfaction - that in itself will create new kinds of connections and institutions that are very urgently needed.  We need to choose for ourselves what works for us right here and now without excluding others' same choices. That will be more inspiring for ourselves and others rather than debating those, who in our present view may represent 'narrow minded ignorant beliefs', when all they are doing is simply adhering to their own self-chosen God-given principles whatever the form.


ok stick a fork in me - I'm done now
- u

 I'm always struck by, and slightly amused by those who seem to believe and take the approach that everything is completely relative, and then proceed so hard to convince us that their's is the more accurate, helpful, etc. approach and beliefs as well as indirectly criticizing others approaches, beliefs, etc.    Yes, quite a bit of irony in such contradictory belief and preaching vs. actions.  So if one indirectly and oh so subtly puts down another's approach or beliefs, then its ok?

 There is a potentially apt term for that, one which Yeshua occasionally referred to the Pharisees as.  

 Also, i like Einsteins saying that if one really truly understands something, they should be able to explain it to a small child, and to keep it more simple.

I didn't see Ultra as being critical at all of anyone. He/she was merely responding to Vajra from my pov as to Vajra's apparent concern that this board was and is on occassion called to task for it's premises. such criticism will happen in society no matter what our posted guidelines say that sharing in a friendly environment without criticism should be practiced. Thats what I heard him say. I also heard him say keep your cool, we're all in the same boat, no matter what religion or belief tenets.

I welcome our new member Ultra, and I salute this person for giving of his time and energy here that perhaps there will be a few who actually see, he/she gave their time and energy forth in good intention. I liked it Ultra, I followed it easily, it was written well, it's balanced and appropriate, as Vajra was bringing the subject up himself.

I'm also glad you yourself Ah So, have contributed similar works such as Ultra gave us. I read every word.



thanks for your response.

To Laffingrain,

Yes, thank you for saying this Laffingrain (I was a bit perplexed by Ahso's comments.), and also thank you for the welcome  :), and previous comments you made higher up in this thread, and in others.
--------------------


General comments:

My response was to vajra's specific personal concerns, and in a general sense, what and how those issues present in terms of an operative truth-seeking according to my experiences, beliefs and observations.  That in itself should not constitute a criticism of others, indirectly or otherwise, nor was it my intention to do so, but only to address a certain set of impersonal, but very identifiable issues and behaviours which were brought up as part of the discussion.  If my post was in some way personally disparaging to anyone here, I apologize. It was intended as a more direct critique and exploration of what are fairly common problems (that include my own) involving 'seekers' in general, by addressing vajra's previous comments. I have been interested in these matters for quite some time, and as I said in the post itself, I believe some of these issues do have some relevance to the more general 'mission' of this site, and to some of the purposes of those who visit here.


------------------------
To Ahso..,

One of my major points was that one does not have to use anyone's beliefs or conclusions either in whole or part, but it would be nice if they were accepted as being valid. My views might not be more accurate, more helpful or even accurate or helpful at all. Its up to anyone to decide this for themselves.  From the highly objective pinnacle of an absolutist view, that might seem hypocritical, and in a way that is very much at the heart of the matter. This is what happens when Krishna and the Kauravas, or Jesus and the evil Pharisees reside within the same body - whether individual, or the world. Contradictions can be both amusing and confusing to the rational mind. So yes, humor is a great saviour. In that regard, am glad that you chose to be 'slightly amused' in your response, rather than being defensive and reactive, since the latter is so much less effective in helping both ourselves and others to get through the journey of life, which is difficult enough already.

Also, I appreciate the compliment by way of reference to Einstein. Thank you.
Who knows, maybe he is in my 'disk' - ha!  Wouldn't that be a real hoot! Relatively speaking of course.





Be well and thank you for both for your comments.

- u

    Yup, kool beans Ultra.  

Hey you're right, who knows maybe Einstein is in your Disc, either way whether you thought so or not, i wouldn't judge you and that belief like some have judged and degraded me about some of my beliefs along those lines.    Reason why i wouldn't judge you or your belief in that, is simply because i realize i just don't know, and i don't have enough interest to really find out....  

And after all, one thing i've learned from my own experience with guidance, and reading about many other people's experience with their own guidance, is that guidance is always most concerned with us, our growth, our relative and ever changing positives and negatives, etc. and not so much with others in the more specific and personal sense (in the more general and impersonal sense, this is different, but they are essentially specially "assigned" to us).     I guess that somewhat ends when one does become fully attuned to Source consciousness.  Dunno since i'm not there yet.

 Hi Alysia, i didn't say that Ultra was being critical of anyone here in particular, however he/she certainly addressed different approaches and beliefs, seemed to speak on the relativity of it all and 'truth', and then yet gave a strong tone that theirs was the more constructive approach and belief.   Not only that, there were 3 quite long posts (one super long) post addressing this issue...and if this isn't a form of 'preaching' to convert others to their position and beliefs, i don't know what is--yet he or she seemed to speak against such behavior, attitudes, beliefs, etc.

 I believe that there is such a thing as truth filled paradoxes (such as the eternal reality of the very different energies of Yin-Yang within the Whole or One, at least within this Universe), but when it comes to contradiction and to human behavior and actions, well that's a whole nother enchilada.   As i mentioned in my other post, Yeshua oft caught the Pharisees, Sadducee's, and Scribes in these contradictory positions, and sometimes pointed them out without having feelings of judgment or negativity towards them--but this didn't mean he didn't or wouldn't use strong words.  

 He seemed to do this mostly for the people listening to these folks who put themselves up as teachers of spiritual truth, and maybe he also hoped that they themselves saw such blatant contradictions and what those implied.  

 I would never dream of p.m' ing, emailing, etc., most of you or Ultra and "preaching" to you what is truth or not (well i did do this a bit in relation to one person here--someone i consider a friend, but it was still more impersonal and concept oriented).   I don't care so much what people individually believe, or don't, and i'm not in the business of personally trying to convince people of things, and i don't look for such personal or private interactions.  Hence i'm not a "Guru" type,  i'm a general "preacher" type.    

 But this is a public site, and i sometimes feel it's important to point out certain contradictions, or to address certain beliefs, and try to give a more holistic or balanced perspective because i know many people read this site, and i know that people and their energies have both an unconscious and sometimes conscious affect on others--everything 'individual' affects every other individual thing.  

 For example, when you read a certain teachers book, there tends to be an energetic connection made between you and that teacher, book, or the collective surrounding same.   This is not always a immediately positive or growth filled condition.   Some teachers and info are at slower vibratory levels than others.   From a much larger no time perspective, hey we all eventually will reach the same attunement, but while physically incarnate its important to keep the right brain aspect of self, balanced with the left brain aspect of self i believe.   It's also important to realize that if relative 'time' wasn't a factor in this, then the various guides more so attuned to Source reality, or the Planning Intelligence itself, wouldn't be working their butts off trying to help people out of their self created and collectively maintained unrealities.

 In any case, we're all speaking our truths right?   I see nothing wrong with comparison, contrast, and even occasional debate--it was even the pattern of Christ himself and while i may be wrong i don't think Ultra is vibrating at such fast vibratory rates as Christ did while he lived his example publicly.    This (comparison, contrast, debate, verifications, etc) is part of the left brain aspect of self, and is just as important as the purely feminine/passive right brain aspect of self.
The right brain aspect of self, perceives and observes the truth of Oneness, and sees the greater Whole of things.   The left brain aspect of self perceives and rather more so acts on, creates, moves, and fulfills the equally important truth of individuality and freewill, and the relative relationship between the two creates what some call relativity.   Yet not all is relative, and the more one fully attunes to that which is non relative (i.e. Source) such as the Christ did fully and perfectly, the more one can say to others and to self "this is truth".

 Isn't it interesting to note that the east in general is imbalanced to the feminine on the inner levels, and that the west is imbalanced to the masculine on the outer and inner levels, and since all or most of us with ego are imbalanced and over polarized towards one or the other (in a consistent or long term sense), to observe the law of like attracts and begets like in operation as regards belief systems and human behavior, and attitudes.   I find it an interesting and informative observation exercise, especially in relation to self...but i must admit, i am also a bit of a "people watcher" too.    Lol how "negative" and judgmental of me!  

(actually i do have my share of moments and attitudes of real judgmentalism and other negative feelings or thoughts, but then again i'm not like a lot of eastern Guru's out there claiming to be fully God realized or enlightened).

 Also, in general, i've noticed that some people have so constantly suppressed or repressed their innately strong superiority feelings, tendencies, and complexes (particularly those very heavily involved with and invested in certain eastern teachings or religious organized Christianity), and so have a tendency of unconsciously projecting judgment towards others whom they perceive as "arrogant" or whom have superiority issues.
To me, we all have that within us since we all have ego to varying degrees, and it's usually a good idea to be consciously aware of, and make friends in a sense with that shadow side of us.   On a personal level, i tend to prefer the honest and conscious folks with superiority complexes..and lol i guess that's because like attracts and likes like.

 Fire is a very important element (well all are, but Fire is the most innately transformative one), and oft times when people really strongly lack Fire or mostly have it connected to more unconscious indicators in the chart, like the Moon, South Node, or 4th house energies for example, well sometimes they can really dislike the more conscious Fire energy within others, and or against Fire energy in general.    Personally, i feel we all need a perfect, conscious balance of Fire, Earth, Air, and Water type energies if we are to be truly happy and fulfilled (interestingly, Fire is the only element which is not directly related to a more concrete material energy or rather 'form', Fire is much more a pure process than the other elements).  

wrote on Nov 19^th, 2007 at 10:37am:

Also, in general, i've noticed that some people have so constantly suppressed or repressed their innately strong superiority feelings, tendencies, and complexes (particularly those very heavily involved with and invested in certain eastern teachings or religious organized Christianity), and so have a tendency of unconsciously projecting judgment towards others whom they perceive as "arrogant" or whom have superiority issues. To me, we all have that within us since we all have ego to varying degrees, and it's usually a good idea to be consciously aware of, and make friends in a sense with that shadow side of us.   On a personal level, i tend to prefer the honest and conscious folks with superiority complexes..and lol i guess that's because like attracts and likes like.

I have to agree with everything you said. It seems as if some people have a need to feel superior or like they have a get out of jail free card and as a result they fire off their convictions towards everyone else to fuel that. In actuality, we are all human, all equal. There is no good or evil, only difference. Every soul has the capability to do good or evil and they make choices to go on either side in different aspects of their lives either on purpose or accidentally. We all sometimes do things that we are not proud of and most of us apologize for them and make up for them. No one is purely good or purely bad. As the old saying goes, nobody's perfect. We try to be but its impossible. In the long run all we really should do is improve things for everyone around us as well as ourselves, at least that's how I see it.
-David

in my perception I see the superiority complex as pure ego and nothing to be proud about. Being open and more willing to except others beliefs will get all of us closer to home and to personal enlightenment. Some may be happy being with a Christian God or a Buddha (etc) like leader. (You know pigs and cows can be led with a ring through their noses.)  Whomever you personally choose to connect with, enjoy and feel enriched by your choice. There is nothing wrong with any of your beliefs except the one where one is better than the other. What I find wrong is the assumption that one has the better or true belief and that the other is not correct. There is no right or wrong. Walking around with blinders on will only lead you into walls.
Joe    

hawkeye wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2007 at 5:39pm:

in my perception I see the superiority complex as pure ego and nothing to be proud about. Being open and more willing to except others beliefs will get all of us closer to home and to personal enlightenment. Some may be happy being with a Christian God or a Buddha (etc) like leader. (You know pigs and cows can be led with a ring through their noses.)  Whomever you personally choose to connect with, enjoy and feel enriched by your choice. There is nothing wrong with any of your beliefs except the one where one is better than the other. What I find wrong is the assumption that one has the better or true belief and that the other is not correct. There is no right or wrong. Walking around with blinders on will only lead you into walls. Joe

 ?  Joe, perhaps i'm not too quick on the uptake here and all, but if there was no, more correct/accurate or less correct/accurate, then why would you have said some of the below things to me?  
You said these things to me, after i put forth my beliefs and perceptions that much food (produce) tends to lose its vitality soon after its been plucked from the ground, and that organic foods tend to be healthier to eat and to invest in.  

 Joe wrote,
Quote:

"Ahso...What do you mean by vegs lose their vitamin and vitality values when even slightly old? You can't really believe that nonsense? So when fruit or vegs get ripe, they are not as good for you as when they are un-ripe? I don't think so. Thats what the stores want you to believe. Use less, throw it out early, and buy more. (to give them more profits.) They are in the business of selling you things that you don't need. They sure sold you, if its correct what I think you are saying. Its almost like the whole "organic" labeling thing....what cra_.

 A few things become suggestive in the above. One is that you seem to believe you "know better" than another, you seem to believe that at least in this case there is a more accurate and less accurate belief and perception, and above all that you are not above degrading another's beliefs at the expense of your own more accurate position and greater knowledge.
   
Don't get me wrong, at the time i actually liked your responses, because while I don't agree with those statements/perceptions and it was not a purely Godly type response, it was at least HONEST, and i think honesty is one of the most important things to cultivate on the spiritual path.  

 Part of the reason of why i came on this thread to begin with originally, was to address the more subtle, less direct, and not very self honest or conscious superiority attitude and approach.   My belief and original point is that it's not constructive to pretend to be above ego and arrogance tendencies when we are not.   We shouldn't repress those aspects of ourselves, while they are still actually there.   And we shouldn't tell others not to have such attitudes, feelings, thoughts, or tendencies when we still have them ourselves.

 I oft get the feeling that many people in the spiritual world have a deep and largely false self need to be perceived by others as spiritual, wise, and the like.  Thus, many project a certain 'image', which tries to reinforce that.   We preach certain things, but then do others. I know, because i use to be there quite strongly and unconsciously, and somewhat consistently.   Nor am i totally beyond that yet.    
Those with really deep, pervasive, very unconscious, and consistent tendencies and attachments to wanting to believe this about self, and wanting others to perceive same seem to rarely and directly tell others what 'the truth' is, but they can and often resort to very subtle, or indirect means of doing this.  Because it becomes subtle or indirect, it does not make it any less constructive, or less false self motivated.   There is much to be said for directness, because directness is at least more obvious and apparent.    This is where the balance and integration of Fire can come in handy.   Too much water, too much Neptune and Pluto in particular, can lead to a very unconscious actor who pretends a lot but doesn't fully become the role.  Such a personality type can become the constant insinuator, the master of negative but super subtle and judgmental innuendo, and all the while believing themselves more wise, enlightened, etc, than others because they don't directly tell others the truth, the right way, etc.

  I've gotten the sense that some folks here and there have perceived me to be a very arrogant person.   While i certainly do have arrogance tendencies, i wouldn't say i'm a basically arrogant person. I'm just not falsely humble or super quiet/introverted anymore (i use to be, that whole Libra Moon CON Virgo Saturn, and Pisces S.N in 7th kind of pattern), and in some respects i'm actually kind of a humble person.    Why i say this, is because i realize that i don't know it all, i realize there is false and misleading part of my total energy, and therefore i'm humble enough to look to and try to follow the example of a teacher of whom i'm fairly sure totally transcended this false aspect within self and lived pure reality.  

  So i look to his pattern and example.   If there was no more accurate, or less accurate, then this person, this teacher, this Being of Light whom many credible psychic sources have vouched for, was a supremely "arrogant" and egotistical person because he told others essentially this, "this way, this example is the way to truth, and you will only know truth by following this pattern, this example"     He occasionally told some folks and groups very directly, and in a "fire and earth like" (no nonsense and very direct and even at times confrontational) manner, that they were quite off on their beliefs and perceptions, but he was all things to all people.  He even debated with them, and used their own beliefs, perceptions, and contradictions and hypocrisy to show them how and where they were off.  In other moments, he became water or air personified, he was gentle, he was kind, he could be as subtle as a soft wind one's cheek--he oft spoke in parable.   One thing he didn't do though, was preach one thing, and then practice another.  He didn't contradict himself like the other supposed spiritual experts and teachers did.  

 Now, i don't believe in "right and wrong" in a moralistic sense, i believe in constructive/positive and non constructive/non positive.   I believe in "fast vibratory patterns" and slower vibratory patterns.    I believe in more accurate and less accurate.    And i believe that it is and can be a somewhat relative issue for the individual....but yet there is a standard, and that standard came and lived the perfect life, the perfect example.   As Rosie's guides said, he was the fastest vibratory consciousness to incarnate in the Earth, as Cayce's guides said--out of all the thousands of teachers come to earth only he fulfilled the whole Law.  

 If everything was completely relative, and there was no more accurate or constructive and less accurate and constructive, there would be no such thing as spiritual growth or retardment. There would only be a free for all, and everyone could have their cake, their pie, their icecream, their fudge, and eat it all with no consequence and no suffering whatsoever.  

 Yet, we find that the Universe, our souls, our consciousnesses, are set up on the like attracts and begets like Law of energy resonation...and we find that there are consequences, that we can and do suffer even if believe we can eat it all.    Yes, it is a "free for all", but it's not without consequence.    And this is because there is a standard, there is an absolute, there is an objective reality.     That is PUL, and we all have a relationship to same, and while as individuals the relationships aren't exactly the same in the moment, in the long run or long term, its less relative than we would like to believe as children who are consistently indulging in non reality...  

 I think the point is too not concentrate or dwell on what you perceive that is off about another's beliefs, perceptions, etc.   To try to look for the similarities, commonality, and above all to try not to be personally degrading to another's approach, beliefs, perceptions, etc.  Try to keep and open mind and heart, but realize that there is a balance, and that there is such a thing as an overly open mind, just as there is such a thing as a too fixed/rigid approach.  Speak your truth, outline the holes, imbalance, contradictions, or what not in other beliefs, but don't get too personal and degrading.   For example, it's not usually constructive to tell someone stuff like this, when you disagree with them and their beliefs, "that nonsense" or "they sure sold you".    Who knows, perhaps that's not the "right" way to approach others?

 

Hi Ultra. Welcome. I took a look at the post, thought i'd get back to it when I had time and then forgot. Sorry. At least I have some competition now for title of the longest poster!  ;) This is my riposte!

I'm not sure how this discussion got a bit edgy, but I don't think posts like these are about superiority complexes or putting others down, although they may get interpreted as that.

I guess they wouldn't arise either though if we were all of the same mind. The acid test is I guess as you say Justin our own behaviour relative to others, and to what we say - our intention. Whether we are acting out of love or out of ego ourselves.

Although in this I know I partly post to clarify my own thinking on stuff too -  I'm selfish to at least that extent. I also like to share some of the Buddhist insights that have helped me a lot, though I'm far from a Buddhist and would be horrified if I was regularly coming across as judgemental. But maybe I am. Perhaps some wiggle room is appropriate in that I suppose we all pitch vision somewhere ahead of our reality/capability.

I guess the difference between offering an opinion/making an observation and judging somebody is a fine line. We often perceive the former as judgement, while the latter can be judgement masquerading as information. Style plays a part too, we tend to pick up a dogmatic style because that's how a lot of what we read is written. Both sides in the exchange have tasks - the writer to be careful not to come across as tooty, and the listener not to be over sensitive. But bear in mind that even a judgemental post (and we've had a few) may contain lots of use which we lose if we can't handle it.

Perhaps this is why we place so called 'genuine' teachers on a pedestal - we'll only take teaching from what are accepted as superior beings. When the reality is that each and every one of us is our own and the other's guru if we can only remain open and receptive. The alternative is a dumbed down political correctness which to me would be a pity.

Brevity is great too, but some of us ( :-[ errm like me) are not that good at it. This board is actually very patient in that regard.

But viewed another way the sentence 'love is all' is all that need be said IF we all had it figured out. But we don't, and so it gets unavoidably complicated to communicate at C1/conceptual/language level unless we are either incredibly skilled, or talk in meaningless sound bites. The religious traditions bear this out - the Bible, ACIM, or the body of written Buddhist teachings are not exactly concise.

Sogyal Rinpoche of Rigpa fame tells a joke when speaking to the effect that it's just as well that the Gideons don't go around leaving copies of the Buddhist scriptures in hotel bedrooms - you wouldn't get in the door.....

To Ultra's post:

Yes, why supress or reject? Let a thousand flowers bloom as they say. I think that is my point, or one of them anyway.
However, I actually did not speak of seeking truth 'within' any person vs reject his/her methods or traditions - but to fully and completely accept the entire reality of others' beliefs, which come out of the same universe of possibilities we also have complete access to. There is a difference.

I think  this is another of these multilayered issues. We in our attitude must learn to remain open to all views, to see all with equanimity. But when it's time to act we have to make decisions, and so have to decide what's best in our own case.  Which requires wisdom and compassion if we are to get it right. A one size fits all view simply would simply lead to chaos.

I guess too that while there are absolute truths (like love) at the highest level that at this level they do express in highly relative terms - which means we have to stay light, open and flexible to capture true meaning. This stuff is just a crutch pending awakening. The saying 'when you meet the Buddha, kill him...' comes to mind.

What usually goes wrong between people is that egotistical prejudice or sensitivities close their minds to other views. Or even worse they fear them so much that they seek to stamp them out, by genocide if necessary, or by more subtle means. Which means they miss out  on input that may be useful, or may at least be harmless. Which is problematical, because you can't make wise decisions or progress without good input data.

This surfaces in lots of ways - the spiritual path requires remaining open as your view must always evolve, and to evolve generally requires adopting an ever wider view/higher truth.  Likewise if you're going to resolve disputes you have to be able to see both sides of the game as a prelude to offering a solution that satisfies both parties needs enough to avoid trouble. Which amounts to drawing on both sides' views, and transcending the right/wrong digital argument using a higher perspective to show how they can (instead of it being about winners and losers) co-operate to mutual advantage. The higher principle builds from the lower level views and integrates, it doesn't reject.

Having made the decision we still have to remain open to other views, and accepting of the fact that lots of others may not agree with us - and could be right. We never dig in and seek to make dogma of our position.

It's the classic Zen 'caring but not caring' deal. As usual it's rigidity and intensity in beliefs that causes the problem.

Frankly, I do not see how anyone is locked in. There is nothing but freedom. And if there is freedom, why use it to direct energy to institutions or attitudes which are not progressive in our view, whatever that view is?

There may well be nothing but freedom, but you wouldn't think so to watch our behaviours. The problem is rigidity and what's goes on in our heads. We lock ourselves into belief systems, and having done so start behaving like we somehow have to defend them.

It is the play of life itself in all its evolving forms within the ignorance of the physical, and these travails are not limited to the inevitable distortions of the Christian Church, Islam, or even Bruce Moen!

The problem of grasping and rigid egotistically driven beliefs applies to all religions, it's where most of us are. But conventional conservative Christianity has actually built into it dogmatic beliefs/attitudes which very intentionally try to block people from taking a wider view to protect so called eternal truths, infallibility and the like. But so also do many other (most?) institutional religions.

Surely grounds can be found through respectful debate for some movement on this??? This site in reconciling these positions through that debate has surely the ability to make an enormous contribution to all our futures???

There first has to be at least enough openness so that it makes some sense. Though you can never quite know the impact of your words.


I personally do not see the need to have any 'debate' in this matter per se., since there is really nothing to reconcile, and the requisite 'enormous contributions to everyones' futures reside within themselves already, totally accessible.

At one level I pretty much agree, but not entirely. At the absolute or God level none of this matters. Even at this level there is enormous scope for freedom of beliefs. We don't have to agree, just get along. But there is unfortunately a point beyond which beliefs can do enormous harm. Especially beliefs that encourage people to go out and force themselves on others for whatever reason. For example rigid self reinforcing beliefs that encourage people to go out and convert or make war on unbelievers.

Pretty much all of this sort of belief and resulting debate is as you say  inauthentic, or ultimately ego driven, and not at all the same as seekers hoping to expand their knowledge.

The problem is that the attempt to debate (especially when beliefs are rigid) is often counter productive, while argument and attack by causing escalation just drives people deeper into their holes. But I can't help feeling that there are very limited circumstances where the greater good is to engage robustly - if only because a totally passive response perhaps means that error or wrong is never challenged. But it's a tough judgement, because so often the effect is to cause an escalation of aggression and even violence.

The bottom line is as you say that we can never set up camp, must always move on....

There is a need to realize that once we make a conscious decision to move forward, we are not responsible for anyone else's similar God-given decision or how it unfolds. This needs to be a conscious operative principle in a real seeker's life.   iow's - Once one commits to 'the Path' in whatever form, God takes care of the seeker's life-guidance - this is true in regular life in a general way, but it is more specific, or a different kind of directed attention while on the Path. ......That doesn't mean that any way or teacher is necessarily superior just because they are most appropriate or expedient for us right now, they just are for us.

This is the issue of trusting in Grace, basic goodness or whatever you call it. If we release belief and rely on intuition (with sound teaching, intellect and common sense riding shotgun just in case we get it wrong) we eventually as you say find that we get the guidance that we need.

Tradition and exact teacher are not important as long as the message is in there somewhere. What matters is Grace, or wise discrimination so that we can pick what we need. As I've been saying a lot recently 'many paths lead to the top of the hill, and the cows all get to the barn just the same'. Truth surfaces in many forms, and is required in many forms depending on our situation.

But neither is it real faith, a conviction originating from the part of us that is the Knower of the Real - which mutually excludes others' by dint of its own presence in any one's life. It would have to be something else then - perhaps fanaticism - since the real faith is based on the essential unity of divinity.  

Faith and fanaticism are very different. The former (in its true form) seems to come from the same place as Grace/basic goodness, and has little to do with belief. It's identifiable by an openness and lack of fanaticism

Both institutions and individuals are the results of countless choices - .....As they change, we may find ourselves no longer in alignment with their motives, means and manifestations.

The temporal interests of the institution seem very often to come to transcend their legitimate mission....

AhSo- I did not meen to offend you Jason. My personal feeling about arrogance and ego are nothing but my own. I don't need affirmation from anyone here regarding they are on trac or not. They are just the ramblings between me and my reactive mind. I don't personaly like arrogant people with big egos. To me it shows a weekness of spirt. Now this is only what I think and not what anyone elso should think. I am not after controling anyones mind or thoughts. A place to express myself, and to shair with others is why I came to this board.
As for the whole Vegy thing. You know Jason, you might be right. Perhaps raw, unripened fruit and veg may be the best thing for a body. All these years I was under some impression, picked up from Christ knows where, that ripe fruit and Veg was good for a body. You know, I don't know who is right. Really, does it matter? I am still going to eat my ripe stuff, and you your unripe. When I said I thought that your idea that the unripe veg being better was cr-p, I meant it. It could be that we are both wrong. If I have offended you Jason, please excuse me. I am the first to admit that I am uneducated and ill informed on many fronts and have no right
to dictate to anyone on what to think or to believe in. My only guidance is for my self and those on my disk. If I have showen less than my love for you I apologise and offer you it now.
Joe
PS: I also strongly dislike men with bright red hair. I don't know why but why but I do. Perhaps its your picture that sends me off. No matter, I also know you are not your hair.  

hawkeye wrote on Nov 26^th, 2007 at 3:07pm:

AhSo- I did not meen to offend you Jason. My personal feeling about arrogance and ego are nothing but my own. I don't need affirmation from anyone here regarding they are on trac or not. They are just the ramblings between me and my reactive mind. I don't personaly like arrogant people with big egos. To me it shows a weekness of spirt. Now this is only what I think and not what anyone elso should think. I am not after controling anyones mind or thoughts. A place to express myself, and to shair with others is why I came to this board. As for the whole Vegy thing. You know Jason, you might be right. Perhaps raw, unripened fruit and veg may be the best thing for a body. All these years I was under some impression, picked up from Christ knows where, that ripe fruit and Veg was good for a body. You know, I don't know who is right. Really, does it matter? I am still going to eat my ripe stuff, and you your unripe. When I said I thought that your idea that the unripe veg being better was cr-p, I meant it. It could be that we are both wrong. If I have offended you Jason, please excuse me. I am the first to admit that I am uneducated and ill informed on many fronts and have no right to dictate to anyone on what to think or to believe in. My only guidance is for my self and those on my disk. If I have showen less than my love for you I apologise and offer you it now. Joe PS: I also strongly dislike men with bright red hair. I don't know why but why but I do. Perhaps its your picture that sends me off. No matter, I also know you are not your hair.

Hi Joe, i think you kind of missed the point of my reply to you.  Either way, thanks for the apology and honestly no harm done.  I didn't get offended at all.  After having had my Greater self in the guise of Saturn crush and then burn my ego in various ways somewhat recently, i rarely take things too personally anymore.  


P.S.  my name is in actuality Justin, and my hair isn't "bright red".  It's a mix of light brown with moderate reddish and golden highlights.   If you don't like my hair and looks, then i guess you wouldn't like my teacher or his hair and looks either.  He's going to go public again at some point.    

Hmm, maybe you don't like my looks because you didn't like him and his looks in another experience, there is quite a bit of similarity (looks wise at least)?  Oh well...  ;D

Justin, Oops, sorry about the name thing. Most likly the whole red hair thing stems from one of my own past lives where I was red headed and didn't like myself. I have read from somewhere that the new saviour will be red headed. I think it was a L.Ron Hubbard paper?(cult guy) I take it that you are interested in astrology..? Perhaps if that is so you may know a bit about the timeline in regards to the changes that are comming.Big clock and all. Perhaps you can shair your thoughts, if any on the subject, on a thread here.
Joe

 Hi Joe, my experience so far leads me to believe that most people don't like hearing about the whole entire picture of the changes.   Most just want to skip the materially difficult parts, and get to the 'we're all ascended' scenario.  

 Also, astrology only deals with probabilities, tendencies, and the like.   Much is and has been written to occur, but the exact time frame is not exactly set, nor how people will respond to same (the more freewill aspect of the changes).  

So, i guess what i am saying is, what would be the point of starting such a thread.   Anytime i've tried to talk about the Changes, many labeled me a "fear mongerer" and the like.  

 You know, i use to believe that Joe McMoneagle was the real deal, until i read his book Time Machine, and met him    Oh, i do believe he is the real deal as regarding remote viewing objects in space/time, but reading his book i kept getting feelings of "wow, this guy doesn't have a deeper clue or is purposely trying to mislead people about the true nature of the changes".    I met Joe at TMI, scanned his aura, and later on got guidance about him.   He is most definitely NOT a spiritual teacher.   He has some developed abilities, but that doesn't take real spirituality to develop.  I asked him about future events, and said something like, "isn't there a certain amount of flexiblity, freewill, and probability factors involved in perceiving future events and them unfolding like we pre see them?"    He told me flat out "no".  

 As far as my teacher coming back, well he hasn't been reborn and won't be.   Same body image he re-formed and the outines of which is now imprinted on a certain controversial artifact.  Yes, very strange indeed, a reddish haired and blue gray eyed Jew!  But then again, he was an unusual person in many respects.  

 I find it interesting that a Jewish lady who did not believe in this person, and who wasn't exposed too much about him, when she died and met him, she reported that he had reddish hair.    Funny enough, this also jives well with what Cayce said about this person's looks (on 2 different occasions).  

 I saw an expertly recreated bust of the Shroud person's face and not only did it look different from some of the 2d image depictions of him, but i was a bit weirded out by how much my teacher and i look alike, facial features, same colored hair and eyes, etc.   Don't think it means anything deeper, but it is rather odd and puzzling.  

 Joe McMoneagle also relates trying to remote view Christ, and also picks up on the reddish haired thing.

 You know Joe, i'm kind of curious of why you brought up the whole red haired thing to begin with...  I mean why would you tell me that you don't like red hair and my looks?    Seems kind of strange in the context of what we were talking about at the time.  

 As i'm sure you know Joe, half truths are worse than whole lies for they can deceive even the Soul.   There are people out there in the business of half truths, aren't there?

Justin, I don't have a problem with your looks, nor your hair. It's not you I speek of, just red hair in general. On a man that is. In fact I don't mind some red headed women. Did I say I don't like your looks?.... If I did, I don't know why. (?) What do you mean by half truth people? Like the ones who are cult leaders? Jim Jones and the sort. The Pope? Bush? Not sure who you mean. There are so many deceivers out there. So many of them related to religion or religious people. In fact to me most of it seams like more of that cr-p thing. Just out to suck you in to giving them money. Those Christions sure did some bad stuff. Killing and burning people at the stake. Starting wars. Then there is the fundamentalist Islamic's. Kill, kill, kill. It's my God or no God thing. Or how about those JW's and letting their kids die instead of getting a blood transfusion.  I think that its so much better to believe in your God and not in a religion. If J.C. was here today do you think he sitting in Rome drinking wine with the Pope? I don't think so... Now the church, that could be called evil. I will just stick to my God thanks. No fire and brimstone sort of thing. Just love and some forgiveness. I can only hope to be more worthy on the forgivness side sometime. Perhaps at some point I can even learn to be less judgmental. (Ya right) One thing I have alwas done is call a spade a spade. (No disrespect meant or to be implied)  
I read Joe Mc's book also and found he got very little right, time wise. I think his forte is more the remote viewing and finding lost people. Hes very big in Japan. Like a rock star. Finds kids and helps people. When I met hiom I thought his ego was a bit big but I am sure he's earned it.
The teacher comming back you speek of?? J.C.? Is that who you mean?
Joe

Fellow poster's and readers.... My views on religion and on the church are in no way meant to offend any of you and if thay do I truely do make my apologies to you if you are offended. There is nothing wrong in believing. I believe. The church's/mosques as a whole do many good deads and are to be commended for their good work. Its only a few in them and /or running them that are the not so good. Please except my apologies if/where necessary.
Joe