Fables in the Bible
Many of the stories in the Old Testament are totally unbelievable, I am amazed that I was taught for so many years by people who should have known better that these were actual historical events. It is so obvious now that these are myths and fables, with no more historical accuracy than the stories about Atlantis & Lemuria. I can't believe grown up people still believe in these myths, and worse still teach them to impressionable young minds. Let's take a look at a few of the more ludicrous stories.

Creation and the Fall

Ok, so nobody apart from a few fanatics seriously believes the world was created in 6 days as described in Genesis. But even if you maintain that the 6 days represent 6 ages, there are still ridiculous paradoxes that stand out. For example:

•      Genesis Plants are made on the third day, without the sun to drive the process of photosynthesis.

•      All creatures are apparently created as herbivores (Genesis ch1 v

30). So what happened to the dinosaurs?
There are countless others - the Genesis account doesn't even remotely match what science tells us about the origins of the earth, however much you try to twist it to fit the facts.

Noah's Ark
This is basically a reworking of the much older "Epic of Gilgamesh". The idea that there was a worldwide flood is completely unsupported by any kind of evidence. After building the ark, God gave Noah 7 days warning of the flood. There are somewhere between 8 million and 10 million species inhabiting the earth (not including the 30 million different types of insect). Since there was a male and a female of each species on the ark, Noah had just one week to collect polar bears from the North Pole, lions from Africa, spiders from South America and tigers from India and the Far East. Even assuming he could travel around the world at the speed of light, there would have to be an average of 30 animals per second going through the ark's single door. How did the cone beetle survive the year at sea, bearing in mind it can only survive on a particular type of tree only found in California?

Another ridiculous idea is that God created the rainbow as a sign that he would never again wipe out humanity in a global catastrophe. Are we expected to believe that light behaved differently a few thousand years ago when passing through raindrops? Only the incredibly naive can surely believe this!?

The "worldwide flood" somehow seems to have missed out the Chinese and other civilisations that were around at the same time, since they have no record of it.

Finally, the whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

Tower of Babel
The Tower of Babel myth is ludicrous - the idea that the entire world spoke a single language until God became angry at their attempt to build a skyscraper and cursed them all with different languages. Where is the evidence for a worldwide language? All ancient cultures evolved their own languages separately, there was most likely some kind of cross-pollenation as people moved around, but there is more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than a single common language.

Joshua and the Sun

Joshua 10:12-14: It was on the day when the Lord gave up the Amorites into the hands of the children of Israel that Joshua said to the Lord, before the eyes of Israel, Sun, be at rest over Gibeon; and you, O moon, in the valley of Aijalon. And the sun was at rest and the moon kept its place till the nation had given punishment to their attackers. (Is it not recorded in the book of Jashar?) So the sun kept its place in the middle of the heavens, and was waiting, and did not go down, for the space of a day. And there was no day like that, before it or after it, when the Lord gave ear to the voice of a man; for the Lord was fighting for Israel.

Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? Not only does this imply that the Sun orbits the Earth, but even if it happened as described and the earth stopped moving to give the appearance of the Sun standing still, the gravitational effects would be devastating. Funny that there is no record of such an incredible celestial event in the records of all the other civilisations that were present at the same time.

Yahweh defeated by "chariots of iron"

Judges 1:19 Yahweh was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

So Almighty God, who creates universes at the blink of an eye, was defeated by a tribe because they had chariots of iron? Isn't it insulting to ascribe this claptrap to the Source of everything?

Incredibly, I was taught as a child that all of these stories were true and happened as described in the Bible. I cannot believe that the people who taught me such outrageous fables didn't have the common sense to see that this is all absolute nonsense. In my opinion people who claim that the Bible is enerrant and everything happened as stated should have their heads examined.

Thomas Paine writing in "The Age of Reason" makes the perfectly good point that the Bible is full of utterly irrelevant stories that add absolutely nothing of value: When Samson ran off with the gate-posts of Gaza, if he ever did so, (and whether he did or not is nothing to us,) or when he visited his Delilah, or caught his foxes, or did anything else, what has revelation to do with these things?

If they were facts, he could tell them himself; or his secretary, if he kept one, could write them, if they were worth either telling or writing; and if they were fictions, revelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are neither the better nor the wiser for knowing them. When we contemplate the immensity of that Being, who directs and governs the incomprehensible WHOLE, of which the utmost ken of human sight can discover but a part, we ought to feel shame at calling such paltry stories the word of God.

What do you think?


Alan

I too believed those stories until my early teens, as my father is a christian and I attended the church.  Now I look at the bible as pretty much hogwash. Not only that, but there are things in the bible that are downright dangerous. Lines like ""Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin..", creates anxiety and self-hatred, even infliction of pain upon others. And that's one line only.

Yes, there are several positive messages in the bible, but most of those positive messages can be found other places, in pagan beliefs, new age beliefs, and so on, without the negative baggage.  Overall, I think the world should let go of christianity, but I suppose fear and tradition will make it stay with us until we're extinct.

To be perfectly honest, the vast majority of Biblical stories and fables would appear to be partially, or in most cases entirely unbelievable.

It can be argued that many are metaphors carrying moral messages, many of which can indeed benificial if lived by, but many of which are outdated and adherence to them causes untold suffering and hatred which can only be detrimental to society. All morals are arbitrary.

Christianity's morals can also clearly be seen in other religions, both predating and following its conception and rise to prominence, and other biblical concepts, such as the notions of altruism and charity are clearly visible in political ideologies such as Socialism.

As Stjerneeksplosjon said, it is most definitely time to end the grip which the Abrahamic faiths have on this world before it is too late, but this is something which is highly unlikely to happen, as indoctrination refuses to allow it, due to such religions being far too deep-rooted in society.


Luke

Written records, no matter where or when they are created, often contain errors. Not only that, but they are subject to interpretation.

Therefore, I think my opinion about the believability of the Bible is not actually the place where I would start in my study of it.

Take any word on this page. Let us find the truth in that word.

It is equally "just an opinion" for us to remove a particular passage and interpret it.

If we each grew up in an environment in which the principles of love, caring, kindness, fairness, etc. etc. etc. were taught in a different manner.....well, I can always have my little fantasy.

The written word is a miracle. We can agree or disagree. That is also a miracle. I am surprisingly glad that we are having this discussion.

again, blink

Is it that people in this discussion fail to see the forest for the trees?  I'm not sure.  The Bible, both old and new testament is not a purely historical record.  If it were, it would be a thing to be memorized, but without a particular story to tell, or meaning.  To take it as such is missing the point.  The Abrahamic faiths that revere these stories were the first people to believe in one God.  The first to codify the golden rule of "do unto others" (or do not do unto others).  The first to embrace the compassionate and well thought out ten commandments - which, by the way are applicable to the workings of the afterlife and karma.  The first people to talk of a covenant between man and the God of the universe.  There is nothing inconsistent with these ideas and the evidence acquired from NDEs, OOBEs, seances, EVPs and explorations at TMI.  

The bible is rife with allegory.  The stories are meant to be interpreted in sequence from the creation story to Abraham's first contact and God's covenant with man, and in context with reference to man's relationship to God and his fellow man.  

There is much beauty in the judeo-christian ideals and values that have infused our consciousness from these texts.  Love thy neighbor as thyself.  Love your enemies.  I even take a great deal of comfort in the unity implied by the Hebrew Shema:

"Hear O Israel, the lord our God, the lord is one."  This is often the start and finishing prayers of many events.  When we speak of the unity of all things in terms of spirit, can anyone put it in a more simple or straight-forward way?

Matthew

 Well said Matthew, i especially like your last quote.   It seems that much of the Bible, especially the "O.T." is largely symbolic in nature--which can make for a confusing and contradictory reading if taken too literal.  

 And just because so many interpret perhaps too literally and in a limiting way, doesn't mean the whole thing is rotten and worthless.  

Stjerneeksplosjon"

Hogwash comes in many forms. For example, I was into the guru scene for quite a while, and there are so many fake gurus it's ridiculous. In many cases people are better off being involved in some form of religion that some guru's cult.  At least ways Christian preachers refer to God and Christ,  unlike gurus who point to themselves.

Going by various experiences it is clear to me that Christ is a key part of divine reality. Others have found the same without taking on a fundamentalist mindset. Perhaps you might forget about your hostility towards Christianity a bit, and see if there is another way to consider what Christ is about.  When I did so I found that various energetic blocks were cleared, including in my heart chakra.

If you allow your hostility towards Christianity to guide you, you'll have a difficult time seeing the entire situation clearly.  As opposed to focusing on the Christians who do things such as speak against homosexuality, perhaps you might consider how many Christians have been influenced by their faith in a positive way and do good things for others. You might consider how many people have avoided a lower realm partly because of their faith. You might consider how many Christians are humble enough to have feelings of reverence and grattitude for higher levels of being. You might consider how on the spirit level Christ provides help to many.

Consider this example. I was working as a volunteer at a hospital. I was speaking to a former drug addict who was clean for about 8 months. He said that he gave his life to Christ. He said some things that sounded fundamentalist. Even though I had told myself I wouldn't try to convert any patients to my way of thinking, but instead just share love, I started to say something that contrasted to his way of thinking. I felt energy come alive on my left cheek. I feel the presence of Christ in this way. I received the message to not try to change the patients way of thinking, because Christ was taking care of him in a way that suits him. There are all kinds of people in this World with different needs.  The spirit of Christ knows how to help them accordingly.  

One more thing about the patient. Would it be better for him to be a drug addict than a Christian? Did anybody else reach out to him and change his life for the better in an effective way?

Starboom wrote on Aug 7^th, 2008 at 4:44pm:

I too believed those stories until my early teens, as my father is a christian and I attended the church.  Now I look at the bible as pretty much hogwash. Not only that, but there are things in the bible that are downright dangerous. Lines like ""Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin..", creates anxiety and self-hatred, even infliction of pain upon others. And that's one line only. Yes, there are several positive messages in the bible, but most of those positive messages can be found other places, in pagan beliefs, new age beliefs, and so on, without the negative baggage.  Overall, I think the world should let go of christianity, but I suppose fear and tradition will make it stay with us until we're extinct.

Good post, recoverer. :)


recoverer wrote on Aug 8^th, 2008 at 3:13pm:

Hogwash comes in many forms. For example, I was into the guru scene for quite a while, and there are so many fake gurus it's ridiculous. In many cases people are better off being involved in some form of religion that some guru's cult.  At least ways Christian preachers refer to God and Christ,  unlike gurus who point to themselves.

I agree. Personality cults are pretty much the worst and most misleading 'spirituality' there is. People would be better off with moderate religion, certainly. But the bible is nonetheless chock full of contradictory, hostile and dangerous advice. The parts concerning Jesus are probably the wisest ones. Still, who follows what the biblical Jesus suggests? Not 99% of Christians, that's pretty clear.


recoverer wrote on Aug 8^th, 2008 at 3:13pm:

Going by various experiences it is clear to me that Christ is a key part of divine reality. Others have found the same without taking on a fundamentalist mindset. Perhaps you might forget about your hostility towards Christianity a bit, and see if there is another way to consider what Christ is about.  When I did so I found that various energetic blocks were cleared, including in my heart chakra.

Perhaps Christ is important in some way. Or maybe it's a being with many names and forms, I don't know. If I appear hostile to Christianity, remember that I strongly oppose all that which slows down human progress or reverts it, something Christianity as a concept is guilty of (I'm referring here for example to the development of Catholicism, and the dark ages in Europe). As for chakras, I have never experienced them, so I can't comment.


recoverer wrote on Aug 8^th, 2008 at 3:13pm:

If you allow your hostility towards Christianity to guide you, you'll have a difficult time seeing the entire situation clearly.  As opposed to focusing on the Christians who do things such as speak against homosexuality, perhaps you might consider how many Christians have been influenced by their faith in a positive way and do good things for others. You might consider how many people have avoided a lower realm partly because of their faith. You might consider how many Christians are humble enough to have feelings of reverence and grattitude for higher levels of being. You might consider how on the spirit level Christ provides help to many.

I was a Christian until my late teens, so I know the concept of Christianity and the history of it, and the tales in the bible, so I think I have a clear enough picture of what it is. I must tell you, I have nothing against Christians as a group, or as human beings. My father and his wife are both Christians, and they are loving and caring, and I love them. Of course Christians do great things, just like non-Christians do great things, it's what most people do. And I'm glad that so many have found the religion a big help in the everyday struggle. It still doesn't change the nature of the bible, and the millions of souls that have struggled because of it.  


recoverer wrote on Aug 8^th, 2008 at 3:13pm:

Consider this example. I was working as a volunteer at a hospital. I was speaking to a former drug addict who was clean for about 8 months. He said that he gave his life to Christ. He said some things that sounded fundamentalist. Even though I had told myself I wouldn't try to convert any patients to my way of thinking, but instead just share love, I started to say something that contrasted to his way of thinking. I felt energy come alive on my left cheek. I feel the presence of Christ in this way. I received the message to not try to change the patients way of thinking, because Christ was taking care of him in a way that suits him. There are all kinds of people in this World with different needs.  The spirit of Christ knows how to help them accordingly.

That's quite an experience, I would think. I'm glad for him that he found a way out via Christ. I'm not sure what to do with your example, though, except acknowledging it as a nice story. I do agree with your sentiments about people having different needs.


recoverer wrote on Aug 8^th, 2008 at 3:13pm:

One more thing about the patient. Would it be better for him to be a drug addict than a Christian? Did anybody else reach out to him and change his life for the better in an effective way?

Now what else can I do but answer no to a question like that? You keep pointing to things that are worse than Christianity, while I in my initial reply pointed to things that are better. Now I ask you: Would you agree that a Christianity following the basic tenets of Jesus, while discarding the remainder of the bible, would be a better religion than it now is? I ask this because Jesus' way of life is about the only non-destructive,  non-megalomaniac and loving thing about the bible. The rest seems to be made by authors whose personal opinions and fear greatly colored the books. Luckily, many Christians decide to discard the negative things, but how can they then even call themselves Christians, when the Bible is upheld as THE book, the holy scripture for all to see? The last comment is of course besides the point, it just boggles the mind how humans can omit details so things seem better or more harmless than they really are.

Stjerneeksplosjon:

I can't say for certain, but I figure that religion is something the human race made use of as it was growing throughout the years. Eventually things will reach the point where it will be much more clear what spiritual truth is about, and there won't be a need for beliefs that lead to the seperatism religion sometimes leads to.  It'll be understood that love is the most important thing. It'll be understood that you can't completely love that which is divine, if fear is one of your motivations for doing so.

Regarding the Bible, I figure it was put together by many men. If men can make mistakes about spiritual truth today, certainly they could make mistakes during the years when the Bible was put together. I believe that God would want me to feel completely free to use my heart and intelligence to determine which portions come from men who represent higher truth, and which don't. For example, I don't care about rules which explain when you are supposed to kill somebody and when you are supposed throw stones at them. I don't want to do either. I figure Jesus tried to get people to stop throwing stones. Yet some still seek to do so. For whatever reason, they figure throwing stones has more to do with spiritual truth than loving your neighbor as yourself. Sooner or later they'll find out better, because going by what I heard, there aren't any stones in heaven. :)

Some more thoughts.  This is rather simplistic, but I've seen people be Christians in two main ways. Some people really emphasize the fear aspects such as God will punish you, satan is all over the place, and they lose the ability to listen to their hearts, conscious, and common sense. This type of person tends to believe that God wants them to force their beliefs on everybody else.

Some people simply have Christianity as a belief system almost in a background kind of way, don't over dwell on the fear aspects, pretty much listen to their hearts, conscious and common sense when it comes to knowing right from wrong, and don't get into everybody else's business.

If people simply lived according to love and helped others find out how fun it is to do so, things would become a lot simpler.

Alan McDougall wrote on Aug 7^th, 2008 at 5:42am:

Fables in the Bible Many of the stories in the Old Testament are totally unbelievable, I am amazed that I was taught for so many years by people who should have known better that these were actual historical events. It is so obvious now that these are myths and fables, with no more historical accuracy than the stories about Atlantis & Lemuria. I can't believe grown up people still believe in these myths, and worse still teach them to impressionable young minds. Let's take a look at a few of the more ludicrous stories. Creation and the Fall Ok, so nobody apart from a few fanatics seriously believes the world was created in 6 days as described in Genesis. But even if you maintain that the 6 days represent 6 ages, there are still ridiculous paradoxes that stand out. For example: •      Genesis Plants are made on the third day, without the sun to drive the process of photosynthesis. •      All creatures are apparently created as herbivores (Genesis ch1 v 30). So what happened to the dinosaurs? There are countless others - the Genesis account doesn't even remotely match what science tells us about the origins of the earth, however much you try to twist it to fit the facts. Noah's Ark This is basically a reworking of the much older "Epic of Gilgamesh". The idea that there was a worldwide flood is completely unsupported by any kind of evidence. After building the ark, God gave Noah 7 days warning of the flood. There are somewhere between 8 million and 10 million species inhabiting the earth (not including the 30 million different types of insect). Since there was a male and a female of each species on the ark, Noah had just one week to collect polar bears from the North Pole, lions from Africa, spiders from South America and tigers from India and the Far East. Even assuming he could travel around the world at the speed of light, there would have to be an average of 30 animals per second going through the ark's single door. How did the cone beetle survive the year at sea, bearing in mind it can only survive on a particular type of tree only found in California? Another ridiculous idea is that God created the rainbow as a sign that he would never again wipe out humanity in a global catastrophe. Are we expected to believe that light behaved differently a few thousand years ago when passing through raindrops? Only the incredibly naive can surely believe this!? The "worldwide flood" somehow seems to have missed out the Chinese and other civilisations that were around at the same time, since they have no record of it. Finally, the whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work? Tower of Babel The Tower of Babel myth is ludicrous - the idea that the entire world spoke a single language until God became angry at their attempt to build a skyscraper and cursed them all with different languages. Where is the evidence for a worldwide language? All ancient cultures evolved their own languages separately, there was most likely some kind of cross-pollenation as people moved around, but there is more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than a single common language. Joshua and the Sun Joshua 10:12-14: It was on the day when the Lord gave up the Amorites into the hands of the children of Israel that Joshua said to the Lord, before the eyes of Israel, Sun, be at rest over Gibeon; and you, O moon, in the valley of Aijalon. And the sun was at rest and the moon kept its place till the nation had given punishment to their attackers. (Is it not recorded in the book of Jashar?) So the sun kept its place in the middle of the heavens, and was waiting, and did not go down, for the space of a day. And there was no day like that, before it or after it, when the Lord gave ear to the voice of a man; for the Lord was fighting for Israel. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? Not only does this imply that the Sun orbits the Earth, but even if it happened as described and the earth stopped moving to give the appearance of the Sun standing still, the gravitational effects would be devastating. Funny that there is no record of such an incredible celestial event in the records of all the other civilisations that were present at the same time. Yahweh defeated by "chariots of iron" Judges 1:19 Yahweh was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. So Almighty God, who creates universes at the blink of an eye, was defeated by a tribe because they had chariots of iron? Isn't it insulting to ascribe this claptrap to the Source of everything? Incredibly, I was taught as a child that all of these stories were true and happened as described in the Bible. I cannot believe that the people who taught me such outrageous fables didn't have the common sense to see that this is all absolute nonsense. In my opinion people who claim that the Bible is enerrant and everything happened as stated should have their heads examined. Thomas Paine writing in "The Age of Reason" makes the perfectly good point that the Bible is full of utterly irrelevant stories that add absolutely nothing of value: When Samson ran off with the gate-posts of Gaza, if he ever did so, (and whether he did or not is nothing to us,) or when he visited his Delilah, or caught his foxes, or did anything else, what has revelation to do with these things? If they were facts, he could tell them himself; or his secretary, if he kept one, could write them, if they were worth either telling or writing; and if they were fictions, revelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are neither the better nor the wiser for knowing them. When we contemplate the immensity of that Being, who directs and governs the incomprehensible WHOLE, of which the utmost ken of human sight can discover but a part, we ought to feel shame at calling such paltry stories the word of God. What do you think? Alan

Well said, Alan! But, it's the old testament you're quoting from. The Jews Bible! Can't for the life of me wonder why christians have this awful, hullabaloo of warlike and cruel suggesstions on how to treat your neighbours, others nations, family who disobey, other belief systems, kill, kill, kill them all and let God sort them out! writings.
....mixed in with beautiful, compassionate, prayers and other texts.

Maybe these positive chapters, prayers, and verses in the jews bible are just put there to make it acceptable?...After all, if it were all negative stuff, very few would follow or tow the line with this religion!? As for the stuff you wrote about, Alan. Well. Only the very gulliable would believe it. What astounds me is the amount of christians that beleive this BS! The main culprits are the fundy crowd led by their pastors in $1000 designer suits, mansions, luxury cars, that speil out this rubbish from their preaching palaces and pray TV channels!

But! On the other hand, like others have said on this thread, I find that at least 50% of christians to be good, well meaning, and very nice people, who would go out of their way to help others and I mean strangers in need. One just has to see all the charities of all the various major christians religions that operate in your own countries and in 3 world nations, and have been for many, many years. By the way I'm not a christian. Harve.



 

Whoa, Folks!

Please reread the Posting Guidelines. They are indexed above this forum.
This site is dedicated to building valid afterlife knowledge.
 
   ;)  Sorry --There's just not enough space for all the valid complaints we have built up over our lifetimes about how our spirits have been trampled.

Bets

[Alan writes:
........If they were facts, he could tell them himself; or his secretary, if he kept one, could write them, if they were worth either telling or writing; and if they were fictions, revelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are neither the better nor the wiser for knowing them. When we contemplate the immensity of that Being, who directs and governs the incomprehensible WHOLE, of which the utmost ken of human sight can discover but a part, we ought to feel shame at calling such paltry stories the word of God.

What do you think?]

I think you sound very angry.  What does this rant have to do with afterlife knowledge?

You're right, Shining,

It could be read as an angry approach. But what he often does is set up a controversial question and then procede to build answers.
Perhaps he's misjudged his audience?
There's alot of different ways of talking on this site, shining from all over the globe. Lots to choose to learn from  :)

Bets

I went to bed right after writing my reply to recoverer. After a couple minutes it hit me that I may be arguing against myself. The past few years I've tried to maintain that things and concepts in themselves cannot be harmful, but that the people using them are the ones provoking the harmfulness. Some things can be potentially more harmful than others, yet that still doesn't mean that they are good or bad in and of themselves. Yet in last night's reply I was very much arguing against that logic; instead I insisted that the bible was inherently dangerous. After that little epiphany I spent about ten minutes trying to decide if this meant that the whole of my reply was void. I tried to think of different concepts and things, trying to determine if they were of neutral, positive or negative value. And I found myself applying mostly neutral values on things. But there are a few concepts that can't be defended. Like, for example, the concept of murder. Murder is in itself quite harmful, I'd say. So, I came to the conclusion that my reply did contain, after all, at least some valid points. But I have to retract my general impression that the bible is in itself dangerous. Looked at objectively, it is a book full of myths, legends and advice. Some unfortunate, some nice, but it's up to people how they're going to apply it to their world. Blaming the bible for violence, murder, suffering, etc - would be like blaming a movie or a video game for the very same. Just the thought makes me laugh. And so, in my eyes, while the bible is potentially very harmful, it can't be blamed for anything.

Doesn’t it all come down to what is in the eye of the beholder?  To me the Bible is filled with love and inspiration, as well as great sadness.  It is the history of people, their trials, tribulations and struggle in living life, but most of all it is about their relationship with God, nature, others and themselves.

Bottom line is “choose love” to overcome all obstacles.

Kathy

Well and succinctly put Kathy.
And now I will take the liberty to say in thousands of words (ugh) what you said nicely with very few:


recoverer said,
Quote:

Hogwash comes in many forms. For example, I was into the guru scene for quite a while, and there are so many fake gurus it's ridiculous. In many cases people are better off being involved in some form of religion that some guru's cult.  At least ways Christian preachers refer to God and Christ,  unlike gurus who point to themselves.

Hi recoverer,

That is a relatively short passage, but it is nevertheless quite loaded.
Now I really need some clarification on hogwash.
Or, can we at least now clean the pearls after they have been cast?

Regarding fake "gurus who point to themselves",
Isn't Jesus Christ the Guru Who pointed to Himself and said,
"I am Alpha and Omega",  "I am the Way and the Goal", "I and my Father are One", etc.?
Can you think of a few more???

Now recoverer, do you even read or think about what you write about your own Guru? According to your evidently confused and hyper-simplistic fake-guru detector template, your own Guru, the Christ is a fake. Why undermine your own support? That might become a painfully conflicted life path, don't you think?

Would you therefore as you imply, as a healthy alternative to the 'fake guru', follow any 'ordinary preacher' who says "Christ is Lord" regardless of their spiritual achievment or lack thereof, simply because the word "preacher" has a different ethno-cultural origin than the word "guru"? What is the functional difference anyway if they are both below your required standard - as in "fake"?
But before you send a check to Pat Robertson -

Wait - listen. How does this sound?
Christ is a fake because he pointed to Himself.
Preachers are not fake because they point to Christ.
All 'gurus' are fake because they are not Jesus.
Christ is somehow not thought of as a Guru even if he actually is to millions.
And, an additional note to add to the confusion:
Some Gurus have embodied the Christ Principle even if their name/form/personality was not Jesus of Nazereth.  
Judas' Priest!!
Yes, hogwash comes in many forms.
It is pretty ridiculous isn't it?

Albert, you may think you left, but are still very much in the guru scene, apparently.
My friend, you are swimming in it and don't even know it, even if your Guru the Christ does.
Moreover --
You have simply chosen the one form of Guru that suits your currently adapted and evolved belief system needs.
But don't become disturbed by this revelation...

It is of course everyone's gift and priviledge to make their own choices - and change them too as you did, guru or none, and as many times as one cares to - but a problem might arise in making our own choices exclusive of others' same right to choose other forms and personalities embodying the same Spirit by denouncing others' relative individual choices, standards and acheivments within the general evolution as "fake".

Listen to what a wise man once said:


Quote:

Christ was taking care of him in a way that suits him. There are all kinds of people in this World with different needs.  The spirit of Christ knows how to help them accordingly

The key phrase here is "the spirit of Christ" not - 'the form of' or 'the image of', or "the personality of".
On the highest level, that same Spirit is also available in Krishna, the Buddha, etc. - other Gurus (and again, feel free to use the word "Teacher" instead of "Guru" if it allows you to breathe easier - inwardly and outwardly)

Isn't it remarkable how an omnipotent God could descend, take on different forms in different geographic areas to affect different changes in different times for different people according to different needs? And yet, we can all benefit right here and now. How clever and wise is that omniscient God? It's enough to make one pause to offer love, gratitude, and reverence.


Quote:

Going by various experiences it is clear to me that Christ is a key part of divine reality. Others have found the same without taking on a fundamentalist mindset.

Can you believe - others have found the same about Krishna and the Buddha?
Among other things, it is the fundamentalist mindset that regards outer form as the superior qualification vs. the inner essence, and as such, incorrectly denounces other forms of the same Essence as invalid.

Krishna addresses that issue thousands of years B.C. and like Christ, points to Himself, also uttering similar bombastic, blasphemous self-referrent outrages like, :

"Fools disregard Me when I assume a human form; for they are unaware of my higher nature as the Supreme Lord of all beings"
"I body Myself forth from age to age."
"I am the origin of the universe and its dissolution",
"If I should cease to work, the universe would perish"
"I am the Lord of all beings...there exists nothing whatever higher than I am."
"Know Me to be the Eternal Seed of all things that exist...they are in Me."
...Etc.

Imagine the brass fake-guru balls on that loser!  


Quote:

Going by various experiences it is clear to me that Christ is a key part of divine reality. Others have found the same without taking on a fundamentalist mindset. Perhaps you might forget about your hostility towards Christianity a bit, and see if there is another way to consider what Christ is about.  When I did so I found that various energetic blocks were cleared, including in my heart chakra. If you allow your hostility towards Christianity to guide you, you'll have a difficult time seeing the entire situation clearly.... perhaps you might consider how many Christians have been influenced by their faith in a positive way and do good things for others. You might consider how many people have avoided a lower realm partly because of their faith. You might consider how many Christians are humble enough to have feelings of reverence and grattitude for higher levels of being. You might consider how on the spirit level Christ provides help to many.

I hope you might try to see that one could very easily substitute the name Krishna or Buddha in every single instance where Christ/Christian appears in the above and not change your meaning even one iota, nor would that constitute hostility towards Christianity. In another substitution exercise that might be effective to illumine another level of the same issue: "Perhaps you might forget about your hostility towards"......gurus, for example, by replacing "Christ/Christian with: "God's infallable dispensation to individual human need in all forms"? That could be the starting point for a labor of love that could extend to every possible being in the entire creation that operates as an instrument in an unfathomable divine play of specific immediate need and particular instantaneous fulfilment - that is in no possible way "fake".

The world is what we ask for it to be, all the way from the lowest depths to the highest heights and everything in between.

Of course the mind wants to divide up this amazing ceaslessly dynamic unified continuity, and in the purely material world, division appears to be the way - divide and conquer is the march of success. In the spiritual world a different standard seems to apply regarding this approach to reality, rendering exclusivity, separation and division the cause of depression, frustration, and eventual bitter isolation. In the spiritual life, divisive, exclusive attitudes are probably by nature necessarily at odds with other more essential progressive tendencies and they almost certainly do create internal conflict - or more accurately, they are representative of existing untransformed internal conflict in the transitioning nature, as in a 'house divided'. But I'm guessing that as ego transforms into a divinized individuation, so unity must as a result increase, because the basis of unity is divinity, right? Or, is an increase in unity while at the same time an acceptance of diversity the sadly mistaken evil fantasy of that vast, totally homogeneous, monolithic conspiricy known as "EASTERN THOUGHT"?

People tend to believe what they frequently externalize in speech. This can have consequences in terms of real physical plane manifestation in one's own life, as in self-imposed psychic and physical debilities. We often see the results of that process on the mental/emotional plane right here in seekers who appear fraught with a desperate and deep negativity and cynicism, as well as the less entrenched versions involving the silly derision of what they are not familiar with, don't understand, or don't accept as real. How does that help anybody move forward?

By the same exact token, and in a related subject from this thread, I agree with you that if one doesn't find the Bible personally inspiring - that does not make it "hogwash", especially because others may find inspiration in it. But just like with "fake gurus" - why bother with it in that case? In fairness, it should be noted that the same person who made that comment about the Bible (insertion: As I post this I notice that Star.explosion has more or less retracted and very thoughtfully revised some comments that seemed harsh and according to him, realized them to be not even in his own best interest. Given that there has been some recent acknowledgement of others' hard work, both inner and outer offering here, including some appreciation of my own efforts, I am inspired to do the same and say to Star.explosion that what he has done greatly inspires me and I really appreciate his open mindedness and flexibility in his re-consideration - bravo.) did not say anything at all disparaging about the Christ (at least that I read) which is a slightly different thing. Although perhaps (originally) rudely put - he simply reported finding the Bible not suited for his purposes. In fact - that sounds a lot, no - exactly like some of your (recoverer's) very own adamant assertions of preference, exclusion and denouncement that have been voiced so persistently here by you, in fact - identical.

If so-called 'Christians' or 'fake gurus' and all their perverted and misapplied misinterpretations of elevated and legitimate Source don't serve to expedite you in your journey, why bother with them?
Like - why deliberately order, pay for and sit down to eat food you don't like, or have to pick through to find something edible, and then complain about the restaurant?

Better for one's own search would be to have a look at the lives, stories, teachings of authentic followers of the Christ. Best would be the Christ Himself, if you believe in what He represents, or the same as available in other forms. That is Who I would trust as a Guru. Go to the Source.

Personally, I do not doubt the "audacious" pronouncements that the Christ made, that Krishna made, that Buddha made, nor do I think it makes Them suspect as Great Teachers. But I would look carefully at the statements of "fakes". Why bother with the limited and the limiting?
Well, for one inescapable thing, because that is pretty much the game - to shatter and move beyond incremental limits as we travel along the way. However...

If I am over here shattering limit "A" in my life at this moment, does that make someone who is transcending limit "Q", a "fake"? What about so-called "Christians" who perhaps are not "fakes" as much as they may simply not be following the teachings of the Christ? Can anybody say that they have accomplished that task in a perfect, complete manner? Very few.

Why then even choose and use a word that imposes such a heavy additional burden of limitation on others who are by virtue of their presence here on Earth, all stuck with the same difficult life challenges and limitations?

I think that would go for teachers and students alike, who's "designation" as one or the other may change even on a momentary basis according to the relative nature of immediate role,  and who occupy a vast continuum of standards and capacities that also shift and change as everyone struggles to make progress, which is hardly linear or consistent. If that is true, then where do we draw that line - who's who right now at this moment? Who's the fake?

It is abundantly clear to me then, striking even, that in all this repeated discussion on "fake gurus", there is never, ever any mention of the very essential, necessarily reciprocal issue of the "fake student". That is an absent focus that is not only highly integral to, perhaps inseparable from the general issue of so-called "fakeness", but it is also the one element in that integral polarity that by nature can actually be responsibly and practically addressed by each individual aspirant on a moment to moment basis and according to relative role applied equally whether someone is a 'student' or 'teacher' - up to and including the Christ Himself, who had to learn and assume the role of His Father.

Perhaps it is the application of PureUnconditionalLove that allows for this oneness and legitimazation of everyone's unique path, and the many roles we play along the way.

Remember what a wise man once said:

Quote:

There are all kinds of people in this World with different needs. The spirit of Christ knows how to help them accordingly

When Christ points to Himself, it is because of Who He is and What He represents, and He is actually, factually and truthfully pointing to pure Spirit - the Universal Light and Love which is really the real Guru. That is also the same Spirit that pervades everything and everyone, that we all aspire to, including all the fakes like you and me.


- u

Ultra:

A day will come when you'll find out about the gurus you like to speak of. It is up to you decide when you do so. I don't say the things I say because I'm a Christian who looks to stick his tongue out at anything that seems different from Christianity.  I gained extensive experience with the guru thing years before I made conscious spiritual contact with Christ or any other form of spirit guidance.  I've seen what gurus are up to since the early 1980s. I went from believing they are "all that" to finding out the truth.

I don't believe that Jesus was anything like the gurus who have existed throughout the years. I believe he was a man who knew about the afterlife, and tried to help people out by passing on what he knew in a way they could understand. He also sought to make this World a better place.

Regarding what the Gospel of John said, don't forget that the words in this gospel were passed along by word of mouth and translated in various ways. I doubt that Jesus wanted to be worshiped.

When I make contact with spirit guidance, I never get the feeling that the beings I make contact with want to be put on a pedestal. They have no interest at all with the idolization business that goes on with gurus. Rather, their messages are about how I can become a person who loves all beings equally. This doesn't mean that I have to become blind when it comes to those who try to deceive.

Going by the words that were attributed to him, the Buddha didn't believe in a God who purposely created everything, rather he claimed that everything is an illusion that needs to be overcome.  Certainly this is different than how Jesus viewed things. The Buddha also didn't believe in the existence of an eternal Soul. Many sources have found that despite the oneness of all, each of our Souls are eternal, and the future that is in store for each of us is wonderful. Our Souls become more and more as we gain wisdom. We don't puff out of existence.

People like Bruce Moen show that it is possible to pass on information to other people without having to claim that one is an "enlightened master" who holds the key to another's enlightenment.  I doubt that Bruce is a man who would want to be treated in the way gurus are treated.  

There is also the matter of whether a teacher's life matches his teachings. There are so many gurus with a way of life that doesn't match their teachings. If you care to look, take a look. If not, don't cast stones at people who are wise enough to do so.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22sri+chinmoy%22+Sex%22&btnG=Search

Yes, each of us has interesting things to say, about the Bible, about love, about life.

We can point to the moon and point to the moon, but in the end the light is what we seek. Look up, look up, at the light falling down on our faces! Light is everywhere, and it is everything I need.

Look down, look down. Is that a light I see? Reflected in the stillness, too, is everything I need.

I could go over my life with a fine-toothed comb, my struggles, my happiness, and write my own Bible. It would take a long time.

We cannot ever make generalizations about each other which are completely true. Perhaps, just listen to each other.

I like what Kathy said. Can we care about these people, who wrote these stories? I listen to some of them, and they seem a lot like me. Just as dazed and confused at times. Just as angry. Just as amazed and gloriously happy to feel the presence of God.

Would it be the same book if all the "gory" and "evil" parts were taken out? Would we be able to relate to these people at all? If legends and history and inspiration have any purpose at all, they should remind us of our own humanity, what we have in common.

Then again, I don't read much.

love, blink

A late P.S.

If a person really had a high level of understanding, I doubt that this person would choose to label his or her self as an enlightened, self realized, awakened, or God realized being. Such a person would understand that such terms have been so over used, that he or she wouldn't want to have anything to do with such a term.  

recoverer wrote on Aug 11^th, 2008 at 7:26pm:

Some more thoughts.  This is rather simplistic, but I've seen people be Christians in two main ways. Some people really emphasize the fear aspects such as God will punish you, satan is all over the place, and they lose the ability to listen to their hearts, conscious, and common sense. This type of person tends to believe that God wants them to force their beliefs on everybody else. Some people simply have Christianity as a belief system almost in a background kind of way, don't over dwell on the fear aspects, pretty much listen to their hearts, conscious and common sense when it comes to knowing right from wrong, and don't get into everybody else's business. If people simply lived according to love and helped others find out how fun it is to do so, things would become a lot simpler.

Yeah, that's my highest wish too. But somehow I think a world full of suffering is more of an ideal playground for the development of our souls. Besides, perhaps things would get boring if everyone was happyhappyjoyjoy all the time.  :D

And thank you very much, Ultra, for your kind words to me. Lately I've been trying to cast off the worst of my cynicism, which has grown quite big over the past couple of years, ever since I declared myself an atheist two summers ago. Not that cynicism isn't important, but let it prosper too much, and it can lead to a very nihilistic and hopeless mindset.

Hello Bets,

I know there are a lot of ways of talking on this site.  I may agree with much of what he says, but I confess it's hard to get through the post with all of its hostility and ridicule.  And I still don't know what it all has to do with Afterlife knowledge.   :-?

Shining

You're right. It doesn't have much to do with Afterlife Knowledge, and I'm guilty of being off-topic here too. Personally I feel it's easy to go off-topic on this board because the afterlife encompasses so much, and suddenly you're talking about things connected to the afterlife instead, like for instance the bible. Also, to me at least, it feels like Afterlife Knowledge is the main board in a way, where we all meet and shout, so sometimes you're bound to get off-topic threads and posts.

Hi Stjerneeksplosjon,

You know, my comments about cynicism were general and not directed to you personally. Somehow in reading your posts I really do not think of you as cynical, but I do feel that you are very thoughtful, self aware and sincerely looking for truth. So you are not interested in conventional religion? Millions are now leaving that old structure and seek Truth or God (same thing) within, because they have evolved past those needs for a more circumscribed, dogmatic, ritualized, mediated, externalized experience of Reality. That isn't cynicism, its realism. You have to follow your heart, but please do not mistake the once dominant models and structures of yesterday which once served a useful purpose and perhaps no longer do, as a reason to doubt future growth and progress in a totally new way you have yet to discover.

Personally, I use the word "God" as a convenient expedient in communication even though the attached connotations now are very much derived from centuries of religious definition. Its just easier. However, I look at "God" as simply all that exists and does not exist as in totality of consciousness, and that includes a human being which is a very unique and integral part of that totality.

It is important not to become attached to form, and this is what has happened to religion. Present human needs in defining and accessing consciousness, etc, constitute a shift in content making new forms necessary to embody new directions. There is nothing bad in this as it is a natural process in evolution. Religion has just been a collectivized form of what served a common need up to now.

Over the years I have had the good fortune to meet and know a great many serious and gifted spiritual seekers. I must report that it seems like atheism is a very common "rite of passage" in "shedding" of religion for many at the outset of a re-orientation that is basically a transition from religion to spirituality. Not that spirituality (God search) can't be found in religion, but for many this is becoming less the case, and in our time it is now quite possible and moreso every day, to make that move out of mainstream religion without incurring too much prohibition or ostracizing by the general society.

My guess is that your growth of cynicism over the past 2 years may be the result of transitioning into a new phase of life in which you are shedding like a snake, removing old skin to prepare for further growth. What you call "deepening" may then be seen as a "quickening" as in the birth process. During those 2 years perhaps you were not ready to find the new thing - the new form of inner work that will eventually replace the old, because the old was still present. If you look back you might  find that those 2 years may have served as a period of gestation for you.

Maybe coming here to this site and communicating is giving ideas for a new start. On some level your intuition must have guided you here to meet with the rest of us sharing experience and asking the same questions as you. In that case maybe it has actually already become the new thing in itself  - as the living, active individual search for truth.  Maybe that will be the "new religion".

Perhaps your name here is even a better analogy than a snake skin -ie:  Star-explosion: indicating a very instant and dynamical change to an individuated consciousness (star is the symbol of individual being)

From sources I use and often reference here,
I do not have the exact quotes and so I paraphrase some contemporary spiritual masters on atheism:

Sri Aurobindo: Atheism is merely someone playing hide-and-seek with God, while the theist is perhaps only clutching at shadows.

Sri Chinmoy: An atheist doesn't believe in God. At least he believes in himself which is the same thing as God.

Further on cynicism, imo , yes I agree about letting it prosper too much....and from my own feelings and observations it seems that cynicism is a more difficult issue than atheism.  

Cynicism seems to be a chronic mindset that occurs as result of conditioning from a dominant and persistent critical mind. A critical mind works to advantage in some limited contexts, like if you are an engineer, etc., but not so great in the world at large if it becomes persistent as a general form of consciousness in life. Then other more open and flexible forms of cognition and interaction get displaced, dividing and separating reality from us. This tends to become ultimately more isolating, even socially, because it means the prior denial of others' individual spontaneous and free will choices and expressions, and so is an impediment to acheiving oneness and harmony. Since spiritual growth does mean an increasing integration of consciousness into subjective awareness of and within greater and greater realities, cynicism stops that process by continuously dividing awareness from, and cutting off access to the process.

It pre-judges and assumes outcomes based on past experience - the reverse of genuine growth and progress, it is regressive - expecting what is predetermined to be negative, by closing out perception and acceptance of potential positive "surprises" that do create some joy, enthusiasm, newness and satifaction in life. And here i am not talking about a contrived 'happyhappyjoyjoy' as you say, but an authentic peace, joy,etc. that comes from being truly positively creative, and in recognizing the same in others' lives.

Ironically, a lack of expectation will allow even so-called negative things to happen (creative destruction), and be seen in a positive light because then part of a spontaneous flow in the present time, in a unified continuity, in which the truer meaning and significance may be seen - - not a mentally pre-lived, pre-judged, failed and disappointing expectation leading to frustration and worse.

Any genuinely creative activity can't function well that way. Since life in all its forms and manifestations is creative anyway,  what matters is the quality of what is being created. We do get to explore and decide in which way to persue our own individual evolution, but it is much more difficult if one is cynical, and like they say, energy follows thought.

One more note to put the above on cynicism in a more positive context. In reading your posts, you seem to have the qualifications of what the Indians call "jnana" which is one of the main approaches to Truth/God search according to temperament. In distinction to "bhakti" (devotion), "karma" (selfless action), jnana characteristically embodies mental and philosophical attributes as the primary means.

Part of that process is discrimination between what is, and what is not "God" within the movement of consciousness. The Indians say, "neti, neti" - "not this, not that", eventually paring down the perception of reality to its Essence. It is possible that what you are calling cynicism is also a rudimentary form of this approach. If this is presently unfamiliar I would respectfully recommend the exploration of that if you are interested.    

Best regards,

- u

Stjerneeksplosion:

You're not the only person to become dissatisfied with a religious teaching because of the homophobic ideas presented. Check out Carlos Santana's experience below. Was Carlos being a cynic, or was he being reasonable?

Carlos Santana and Sri Chinmoy
"This shit is not for me--I don't care how enlightening it is."

February 29, 2000
By Rick Ross
Renowned musician and multi-Grammy winner Carlos Santana was a follower of Guru Sri Chinmoy for nine years (1972-1981). In a recent interview (Rolling Stone March 16, 2000) he discussed his time as a devotee within the group. His name while a member was "Devadip" ("the eye, the light of the lamp of God"). That name, given to him by Chinmoy--is inscribed on a guitar strap he still keeps at his home displayed as an apparent memento.

His wife of many years Deborah also joined the group and was then named "Urmila."

Carlos Santana was first introduced to Sri Chinmoy by guitarist John McLaughlin, but soon his experience in the group became a regimented "West Point approach to spirituality." That regimen included daily meditation at 5:00 AM (Chinmoy's followers meditate on his picture). Because Chinmoy liked running Deborah Santana ran marathons. Though she once ran a "devotional vegetarian restaurant" for the group in San Francisco Deborah says now they did "ridiculous things" to "prove [their] devotion" (e.g. "who could sleep the least and still function"). She adds, "I once ran a forty-seven-mile race. It wasn't enough just to run a marathon."

Carlos Santana didn't run claiming, "This shit is not for me--I don't care how enlightening it is." He offered his help through music--often playing Chinmoy's songs at meditation. But he was somewhat annoyed by group announcements that these were "Santana performances."

Santana used to describe his guru as a graduate of "many Harvards of consciousness" who sat "at the seat of God." He once said, "I'm still in [spiritual] kindergarten [and] without a guru I serve only my own vanity…I am the strings, but [Chinmoy] is the musician." However, now the accomplished musician explains "everything about [Chinmoy] turned to vinegar."

The guru apparently once preached sternly against champion tennis player Billie Jean King's homosexuality and Santana didn't like it. Something seemed to snap and he thought, "What the crappity smack is all this--this guy's supposed to be spiritual…mind your own spiritual business and leave her alone," he remembers thinking.

After leaving the group it seems Sri Chinmoy "was pretty vindictive," recalls Santana. "He told all my friends not to call me ever again, because I was to drown in the dark sea of ignorance for leaving him." Despite all this Santana still claims, "It was a good learning experience."

ultra wrote on Aug 13^th, 2008 at 2:12pm:

A whole bunch of goodness

Wow, ultra, that is a rather excellent reply, and I thank you for it. You make some interesting lines in the sand, and your insight seems great. (I should go to bed now, but this is too interesting, haha.) I briefly checked of 'jnana' on Wikipedia, and it means different things, very interesting. Though I do think that if God exists, then he probably is in everything, or is everything.

I must explain, though, that while your words to me are of much value, there is one thing: I didn't go from religion to atheism. Before I got fed up with my spiritual search, I had done just that, searching, for some five years. I even became a member of the The Order of Ovates, Bards & Druids. But sadly, it relied too much on ceremony, and frankly I felt empty when I did these very positive, yet very boring ceremonies at home. It also relied on meditation, but I never had the patience for it, got too restless. Aside from that, I've had a thousand theories, and visited a thousand sites, all the while figuring it was very likely that the afterlife existed. As the years passed, though, I became less and less certain. Strange, that. The more I searched for it, the harder it was to believe in.  Then, one day, I couldn't take sitting on the fence anymore, and jumped down, landed on the atheist side. If I'd had fear before jumping down, now it kicked me in the face with full force. At the same time I was glad I had decided.

After some three months, though, the fear still hadn't gone away. We're talking about obsessing with death, day in and day out. So I eventually started to climb up the fence again, ever so slightly. I remember the second I decided to do that, I got this crazy headache, like I was killing myself by doing it, as if I had been on the right track, and now took the wrong path, the easier one. That was about 22 months ago. So, an agnostic again, but this time I thought there was like a 1% chance for the afterlife to exist, and I relied solely on NDE experiences, why can the brain still create images if there is no brain activity, that sort of thing. I took a much more scientific approach to the afterlife, and life in general, I suppose. The fear didn't lessen much, I must admit. It wasn't as bad as in my atheist days, but still pretty rough. So, I searched for answers, took breaks, searched again, on and off until this month. In the meanwhile, fear created anger, anger at the world for being so senseless and meaningless. Anger in turn created cynicism. Now this was partly a very good thing. I stopped swallowing stories whole; about UFOS, pyramids, alternative history, ghosts...all that. And I still am very skeptical about such reports and articles. But the skepticism grew beyond neccessary levels. I started to resent, a little, people that believed. I especially started to lash out at organized religion. Which it partly deserves, but just think about all this negativity I was starting to create for myself. Noone else really suffered but me, I've always been like that, introverted and not going into 'real-life' arguments.

The past....two months, perhaps, the fear of dying has for some reason started dwindling. It's certainly not gone, but it doesn't dictate my day, it isn't there all the time, some days has even gone by almost without me thinking about death! And just a couple of weeks ago I realized this, and pondered on it a little. Why has it become less frightening? Part of it is perhaps the nature of the life I live. I feel I'm barricading myself with familiar things, and not finding a way out. Too weak to change, while resenting the life I have. Doing the same stuff day in and day out only works for so long before you're ready to move on. And I for some reason have kept myself back. Not that it's easy to find paths to move on to, though.

Also, I have decided to start dishing out love again. I have been surprisingly formed by this heavy metal board I've been a member of since 2002. When I first joined, I was amazed how cruel people could be to eachother sometimes. And I quickly became known as the local nice guy, because I never got angry, never insulted anyone, tried to look at both sides of a story, and so on. Well, spend enough time with certain people, and you get influenced. I started saying less nice things. I started including sarcasm in my replies. I never really ridiculed anyone, but I let the ***holes on the board say what they wanted. I didn't want to defend the underdog anymore. I did change, became more cynical. I even looked up to the most intelligent people there, all atheists, all great debaters. You probably understand now where I got this atheism thing from, haha. Anways..I wanted to be able to debate, tried to look at everything rationally, disregarded my emotions and let pure logic take its place. It's hard to explain this, but gradually this is roughly how I changed. Or tried to change, because I'm not debater, I'm frankly horrible at political, religious or philosophical discussions. I can say a few short sentences, but to argue and to have this big, mammothy bone of cold logic behind it all? No, that's not me at all. So, for the past couple of weeks, I've been thinking I should just drop it, and let myself become more emotional, become more honest, and spend my energy with things I'm not so bad at. This conscious move is also inspired by me becoming more emotional on a subconscious level. Lately I have been crying so many times when I see something touching in a movie, and I've smiled at more things, and...just been feeling..more. Perhaps it's the summer, haha. Lord knows Norwegian autumns and winters are sad affairs.

Yikes, I hardly know how to end this post by now. Er..let's try and tie up the loose ends. Er..yes, well..these changes lately (less afraid of death/wanting to spread the luv/shed my cynicism) made me come back here (I originally found this place last year, I think). I have decided to 'let go', in a way. To just imagine that there's an afterlife, instead of trying to find proof for it. I've started the hemi-syncing, 4th day today, and already it is giving me something. No fancy spiritual stuff, mind, but I'm impressed with myself how I managed to form pictures of Focus 3 and 10 today. Yeah, it's probably all in my mind, but wow, Focus 10 looked beautiful. Focus 3 was just an endless place with fog. Anyway...if there is an afterlife, this might be the best thing I've ever done. If there isn't one; well, then I won't feel anything when I'm dead, and in the meanwhile I'll have had some fun with the creative side of myself. While keeping in mind that my current good-natured self might be a passing thing, I'm so glad I have stopped walking the path to a possible future me: The resentful, old bastard with nothing to give to anyone. Yay for positive thoughts.

PS. I've been writing for so long I'm not even sure I wrote what I intended to write. Hopefully, this has not been too dull for you. I know you are not my psychologist, but I really felt like sharing this for once. It's like the biggest post I've ever made anywhere.  ;D

ultra wrote on Aug 13^th, 2008 at 2:12pm:

Still lots of good stuff

I just want to add that..dear gods, is the time that much already!?!?  :-? Er..I just want to add that I didn't feel like that you were pointing at me when you were commenting on cynicism. And I truly like what you wrote about it in your most recent post, how it can hinder creativity, and so on. It's exactly what I have experienced, I now realize.

Oh, and recoverer, thanks for the info on Santana. I didn't know he had been in a personality cult. He was of course reasonable. It's nice how that the homophobic comment is what made something snap in him. I guess it's because he has much love for other humans. I got some respect for the guy now. I'm not so sure I'll ever be a fan, though.  ;D

PS. Just so we're clear here. If I read about any tinfoil-hat theories on these boards, I'm still gonna comment on them. I still have my healthy dose of cynicism, it's just not overshadowing other aspects about me anymore. Good lord, this week has been a revelation, both physically, mentally and creatively. This afterlife business is not all, y'see, other things have happened too. I might eventually think back on this week as the most important one in my life. :)

PPS: Thank you, thank you all for the support I feel from you, even from people who hasn't really said anything to me. I feel at home in these bits and bytes. :D

PPPS: Now I'm seriously going to bed, it's way too late for me. :(

Hey Stjerneeksplosjon,

Oh I know, we all get off topic sometimes.  I just get tired of the high level of incivility and disrespect some people show.  Why can't we just talk about things and agree to disagree without name calling or treating those with different ideas like they are idiots?


[You're right. It doesn't have much to do with Afterlife Knowledge, and I'm guilty of being off-topic here too. Personally I feel it's easy to go off-topic on this board because the afterlife encompasses so much, and suddenly you're talking about things connected to the afterlife instead, like for instance the bible. Also, to me at least, it feels like Afterlife Knowledge is the main board in a way, where we all meet and shout, so sometimes you're bound to get off-topic threads and posts.]

It seems to me that we trip over ourselves when we attempt to explain "who we are" in spiritual/religious terms. We over-identify with the ideas we are absorbing/observing/reviewing/reacting to.

Therefore, we make personal with each other what is already personal to the point of absurdity.

If a belief system does not free us to individually stand up, without pretentions of "better than" or "more knowing than" or other such egoistic thinking, there is little value in the "operating system" for us.

Without the ability to look at another human being impartially, yet with true love....how is it called love? How is it called spiritual?

It seems to me that any belief system which does not allow us to drop layers of the "false" us is detrimental. There is a new being which is lighter, more free, more loving, more real, existing more authentically in each moment.

As we take each others' hands to share our new being, it is not so important now "how" we free ourselves, only that we do.

Good words, blink, I agree. Belief systems are just that..belief systems. Something that helps us get through the day. But to think that ones own belief system is somehow superior or more right than others, that's just wrong. There are an infinite number of paths to the truth. Much like there was an infinite number of ways to Rome back in the day, if you would believe people from back then. :D

Shining wrote on Aug 13^th, 2008 at 11:29pm:

Hey Stjerneeksplosjon, Oh I know, we all get off topic sometimes.  I just get tired of the high level of incivility and disrespect some people show.  Why can't we just talk about things and agree to disagree without name calling or treating those with different ideas like they are idiots?

I might've skipped some crucial details, but I can't remember any name calling in this thread. Also, I don't think people have shown any special degree of incivility (new word for me there). This is a discussion board after all, and if some people get a little worked up, or excited, then that's to be expected. I assure you, this thread is St. Augustine compared to a random thread on the metal board I frequent.

Well, I'm not denying anyone his or her right to be insulting or uncivil (yes, I know the word -- it was a typo, no need being sarcastic), but after 35 plus years of these kind of discussions, I guess I'm just getting tired of it.  I like what you say in a lot of your posts.  I agree with some of what you and Mr. McDougall say about the Bible, but there's no reason to call people "ridiculous"  or needing "their head's examined" as he does just because they believe what they do.   Sounds like name calling to me.

Fundamentalists get on my nerves too, believe me, but I've had far more productive discussions with them after I quit being insulting and offered some love and respect.  IMHO this is the higher spiritual path.

Besides, I do believe there is a spiritual law of karma, or sowing and reaping, or whatever you want to call it, and I guess I'm just trying to reverse some of my many past transgressions!   ;D

Hi recoverer,

A nice summation of your usual themes.

recoverer said,
Quote:

A day will come when you'll find out about the gurus you like to speak of. It is up to you decide when you do so.

Thank you for the very sincere yet ominous, mysterious, melodamatic and slightly condescending "heads-up". Oooh,  scary. I wonder what unspeakable horrors await me around the bad fake guru corner?? Since you are so concerned, you can personally lead a crusade to retrieve my bitter regrets in the fake guru BST's. Don't forget to bring plenty of PUL.

recoverer said,
Quote:

I don't say the things I say because I'm a Christian who looks to stick his tongue out at anything that seems different from Christianity.

Right!
And besides that, implied in the following is also the complete and total contradiction of the foregoing:

recoverer said,
Quote:

I gained extensive experience with the guru thing years before I made conscious spiritual contact with Christ or any other form of spirit guidance.  I've seen what gurus are up to since the early 1980s. I went from believing they are "all that" to finding out the truth.

Yes, we heard "all that" many times. Its like your own personal version of the Bible (note: gratuitous on-topic reference).  And the conclusion of that epic work is the ultimate "truth", not just for you, but implied for all evidently by your postings - the sweeping generalization that all teachers/gurus/masters except the Christ are fake. Is that your belief? If it is, then it is not necessary to dance a jig around it - just make the simple declaration. It seems exclusive and limiting for my taste and experience, but I could accept it better that way if you would just say it outright. What I mean is, it might be easier for others if you just came out and made a direct statement of that belief if it is indeed true for you, instead of implying it indirectly by putting everyone else's beliefs and ideals down. I for one would respect you more for it, and these silly attacks attempting to disparage others beliefs and inspirations would not then be required to prop up and validate your own by exclusion - thus turning what appears to be a deep seated prejudice against others' beliefs into a removal of doubt from yourself - doubt which is currently being projected onto others. Please correct me if I am wrong about this, and if so in what way. Maybe you will help me to understand this better.

recoverer said,
Quote:

I don't believe that Jesus was anything like the gurus who have existed throughout the years. I believe he was a man who knew about the afterlife, and tried to help people out by passing on what he knew in a way they could understand. He also sought to make this World a better place.

Ha! That sounds just like Bruce! Have I been missing something here at AKC? It could also be describing a funeral director too. Well, you are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but what you are saying is that Christ is essentially just like Bruce? And then is Bruce therefore like Christ? Sounds functionally identical. Ok, I never thought about it like that. Jeez - I hope people don't start burning Bruce's books.

So now you imply that Jesus was not "All That". Maybe my above conclusions about your belief system are incorrect. So what I understand by this statement is that Jesus is basically just another John Q Public, who OBE's and who cares....OoBDude?.
Again - help me out here.

recoverer said,
Quote:

Regarding what the Gospel of John said, don't forget that the words in this gospel were passed along by word of mouth and translated in various ways. I doubt that Jesus wanted to be worshiped.

Doubts are infectious! Be careful. Maybe wear a mask.

Yes, why worship the sacred? I agree provisionally, that is, if it goes in a certain direction....
But also, why diminish the significance of the Christ?

How about changing the word "worship" to "love" or even "identification", which might be better than "worship" which implies an unreciprocal ego-division vs.a pure oneness-love. I think that Jesus did (and does) want to be loved, because that would mean that we did learn what He came to teach. And consequently, loving Christ - guru designation or not - would be identical with loving one's own (and everyone's) Absolute Highest Self, which would have the amazing potential of being a flawless expression of PUL. Do you agree?

That is what is extremely significant about the descent of a Master like Christ. On the physical plane, not only is He the actual physical embodiment of everyone's Highest Self, but as such, He also embodies the perfect knowledge of the DIvine Will for each being AND He also embodies PUL. (It is a very potent combination for human progress and why the descent, presence and access to such a Master is a rare gift.) Therefore He would function as a conduit of those Principles for anyone who would identifiy with Him as Source.  In other words, He is an extremely efficient expedient for the practice of PUL because He IS the pure, unconditional form - and infinitely easier to access, experience, learn and assimilate PUL by the identification with the pure living embodiment of it, rather than by struggling with the distorted, conditional, impure forms that we normally struggle with in the physical, including and especially within ourselves. We still have to deal with all that anyway as we must attempt  to put into practice what is learned from the identification process (something many use meditation for), but at least a model exists to light the way.

"Worship" is just a lower transitional form of this principle of access when conditioned by ego separation.  Another manifestation of 'lower forms' of this access principle related to "worship" but similarly conditioned by ego/separation is when devotees keep 'themselves' sufficiently separate while at the same time recognizing the height, and positioning themselves with the Master, in order to feel superior to others. This is a very common intermediate passage on the "ladder", but it is a mistake to "throw away the ladder" when it can provide ascending forms of access. Also for that matter, imo it is a mistake to diminish the goal (symbolized and embodied by the Master) of the climbing, instead of just stepping up to the next wrung and supplanting "worship" with "identification". It would also be rather serious mistake to misperceive this higher form of access of "identification", with "pedestal worship". Such a misperception and subsequent aversion to the climbing process can have significant implications.

Of course, one would need to believe in all this and be inclined to the 'devotional' approach, but these are some of the issues that come up when "worship" is introduced. Maybe you do not see eye to eye with this. That is fine as there must be other ways to look at it.  I just wanted to address from my own perspective and experience, the particular issue of worship, as you seem interested in it.

recoverer said,
Quote:

When I make contact with spirit guidance, I never get the feeling that the beings I make contact with want to be put on a pedestal. They have no interest at all with the idolization business that goes on with gurus. Rather, their messages are about how I can become a person who loves all beings equally. This doesn't mean that I have to become blind when it comes to those who try to deceive.

There's that pedestal thing again - it is an absolutely unshakable preoccupation for you isn't it? In the further interest of helping me understand...

Can you please explain what exactly is the difference in meaning and function between the "pedestal" and the "reverence" you frequently speak of?

You also seem to have some strange misconceptions regarding idolization being a necessary qualification for someone playing the role of a teacher. Maybe..."A day will come when you will be able to"... let go of this bitter obsession? Really r, just let it go. Can you do me a favor? The next time you "make contact with spirit guidance", ask them what this obsession is about, ok? And more importantly, what can be done about it. And can you also ask them who exactly is trying to make you blind and deceive you? And, are you angry at who is allegedly trying to decieve you?  Do you think those things are all related? Can you ask them?

I think there is a danger not so much from false gurus, but that such blanket preconceptions would become the "pedestal" itself, or more accurately, a stumbling block, because those generalizations would require one to be intrinsically suspicious of anyone who might potentially teach us something (everybody?), and that seems to be a form of ego protection based on fear which would be counter to the general purpose of "becoming a better person who loves all beings equally."

My own feeling is that the only thing that can possibly deceive and blind, is one's own ignorance - which right now for all of us is well ensconsed on the pedestal of our lives. And that "idolization" is a reflection or projection of the ego's active need for dominance and supremacy within the individual being. For millenia, that has been the true "business of idolization" - not the Truth seekers and God lovers who sacrifice to change that, whatever name they go by.

recoverer said,
Quote:

Going by the words that were attributed to him, the Buddha didn't believe in a God who purposely created everything, rather he claimed that everything is an illusion that needs to be overcome.  Certainly this is different than how Jesus viewed things.

Yes, it is different, and that is the beauty of it don't you think? - that they are different but not necessarily mutually exclusive, and each adds something unique and beautiful to the Creation that can be practical to different people according to need. I thought you said that Spirit provides for all in different ways. This would be an excellent example.

recoverer said,
Quote:

The Buddha also didn't believe in the existence of an eternal Soul. Many sources have found that despite the oneness of all, each of our Souls are eternal, and the future that is in store for each of us is wonderful. Our Souls become more and more as we gain wisdom. We don't puff out of existence.

Maybe if part of your disk was around 2500 years ago you could have condescended to illumine the Buddha on the fatal flaws of His presciently anti-Christian conspiracy cult. Maybe you could have saved humanity from immeasuable untold suffering caused by followers of the Buddha's teachings. Come to think of it, isn't it telling that I have never heard (or heard of, for that matter) a Buddhist disparaging anyone's belief system, path, teacher, etc., - especially with a deliberate intent to destroy another being's inspiration, or to assert superiority by claiming others' inferiority in the name of love. I cannot say the same for many so-called Christians I have come into contact with.

What the Buddha offers is a path in which the individual being permanently e-x-i-t-s the physical manifestation into Nirvana, the Absolute, the Eternal. Do you know what that is like? I don't. But for those who believe, the Buddha does. And for the people who choose that, why is it bad? In any case, I am sure it is much, much better than food poisoning.

Among other positive things, I can make use of the Buddha's teaching that emphasizes a de-attachment from form, something the personality centered being is fearful of, as in a fear of losing its distinctly divided and separated sentience. This fear is actually  based on the 'ego's' imposition of that attachment onto the mind which as the primary mechanism of cognition in the personality, seeks to define by that attachment, what is beyond its capability to grasp. Hence the significance of transcending mind and/or attachment in many spiritual paths. This was imo a great acheivement of Buddhism and still is. It does not mean that we "puff out of existence", but the ego thinks "we" do, because "it" ultimately has to, or really it has to sublimate and surrender to becoming an instrument of the soul instead of being the boss of the personality - and it knows this and it is afraid, very afraid.

Perhaps in the case of what we call the soul, that would have more to do with a path of physical plane manifestation, specifically with the evolution process as it continues in physical and as such would not apply to His Path - it does not go that route. It is a matter of choice and some beings take it, some do not. That doesn't mean the Buddha is a "fake". It just means...(- ! -)...Buddhism may not be for you. I might recommend reading Sri Aurobindo's writings on the distinction between the soul and the psychic being, in which he does discuss the implications of Buddhist thought, which could be helpful if you are interested as it relates to this subject. In case you regard Sri Aurobindo as a fake too, best to stay away from that material as well. I found it helpful to me. I hope that is not a too painful statement to read.

recoverer said,
Quote:

People like Bruce Moen show that is possible to pass on information to other people without having to claim that one is an "enlightened master" who holds the key to another's enlightenment.

I have never heard Bruce make that claim, but then could he? Although he may have a problem with an implied (at least a functional) comparison between himself and the Christ, perhaps in the very first instance of such a comparison that I have seen, he does imo, very clearly, I would say indisputably play the role of a teacher or guru - even if that might make him (and certainly you, haha) feel a little uncomfortable. (well, with experience may also come the burden of responsibility and that is understandably stress producing)... keeping in mind of course that not everyone, nor do I,  attach any negative connotation to the term 'guru' - it simply means teacher. Sometimes people put all kinds of bad labels on things because of previous experiences they judge as negative. Such negative orientations tend to persist (as in stuckness) into the present, and if unchallenged/untransformed may generate further problems, both internally, interpersonally, collectively and even posthumously. But then you must know that from reading Bruce's writings which pass on that information.

If someone is in truth actually an "enlightened master", and they embody and manifest the function, it means - - that's what they are, whatever the claims, whoever makes them. It is then a matter of existential reality and not dependent on hearsay, I say, or you say, although opinion may alter anyone's self-chosen access to that reality according to their preference. Why complicate life? But if you insist - here is a thought experiment: Try substituting any profession for "enlightened master" in the previous sentence. And btw, if someone really is fully enlightened and fully God-realized, I would boldly venture that they indeed would hold the key to another's enlightenment, and it may even be their primary responsibility to play that role. Its just that people often don't think to ask for the key. Or they are afraid to.

Speaking of keys and enlightened masters, here is a poem that another famous musician, Bob Dylan, recently read on his satellite radio show:


Quote:

Doubt is the lock, Faith is the key. Hate is the lock, Love is the key. Body is the lock, Soul is the key. Ignorance is the lock, Light is the key. God's Heart has no lock, Man's mind has no key. - Sri Chinmoy

- u


Continued in "off-topic" forum in "CASTING STONES? a response to recoverer"

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1218922389

Shining wrote on Aug 14^th, 2008 at 11:41pm:

Well, I'm not denying anyone his or her right to be insulting or uncivil (yes, I know the word -- it was a typo, no need being sarcastic), but after 35 plus years of these kind of discussions, I guess I'm just getting tired of it.  I like what you say in a lot of your posts.  I agree with some of what you and Mr. McDougall say about the Bible, but there's no reason to call people "ridiculous"  or needing "their head's examined" as he does just because they believe what they do.   Sounds like name calling to me. Fundamentalists get on my nerves too, believe me, but I've had far more productive discussions with them after I quit being insulting and offered some love and respect.  IMHO this is the higher spiritual path. Besides, I do believe there is a spiritual law of karma, or sowing and reaping, or whatever you want to call it, and I guess I'm just trying to reverse some of my many past transgressions!   ;D

I agree, one shouldn't be insulting, and I've tried not to be in this thread. But I still don't think anyone has gone too far in this thread. Also, you must understand, I wasn't being sarcastic, I honestly thought it was a proper word I hadn't seen before.

Ultra:

I understood about gurus years before I made spiritual contact with Christ. Therefore, as I stated before, it isn't a matter of my being a Christian who is opposed to anything that is different than Christianity. I can't say that I think of myself as a Christian, because I don't know of any denomination that matches my beliefs.

I don't believe that Christ is the only light being who exists. I believe there are many wonderful light beings.  I believe that we are all destined to become light beings. However, while living in this World, I believe that most of us are limited in our understanding, just as I am. This doesn't mean that we don't have anything to share with others. However, we shouldn't lable ourselves in a way that implies that we are all knowing (e.g., "I'm enlightened"), when we aren't.

When it comes to reverence, reverence is something we can feel towards every other being who exists, just as we can have love and respect for all other beings.

There is nothing wrong with being able to see that false sources of information exist. It is rather intrusive of you to suggest that I don't have the right to use my discrimination. I find it incredibly unfair for you to think that you can speak about various sources with complete freedom, yet somebody else who has found out differently has no right to speak at all.  

At this time I'm not perfectly clear about what to do with matters like this matter. On the one hand, if I know better about a false source, I feel compelled to share my knowledge even if some people believe I'm a disgruntled creep for doing so. On the other hand, I don't want to be disrespectful about the beliefs of others.

This is a public forum. People do at times state when they don't believe what a source of information has to say. In fact, this is how this thread started out. I believe it was fine for Alan to write what he wrote. If we humans can't discuss our varying ideas, where does this leave us?

Ultra, why is it that you're so defensive about this? I've become defensive when people have said things about Christ that seem to minimalize his role. In some ways it was wrong for me to do so, because for the most part the people who have done so, seem to be loving people who have good intentions. They are mainly people who have been turned off by the things you see in fundamentalism, just as I have been turned off by fundamentalism.

Please notice the chronology on this thread, and realize that I started out by saying very little about false gurus. I did so for a constructive purpose. I didn't say more until you became involved. Was it unreasonable for me to respond in some way?

recoverer said,
Quote:

I understood about gurus years before I made spiritual contact with Christ. Therefore, as I stated before, it isn't a matter of my being a Christian who is opposed to anything that is different than Christianity. I can't say that I think of myself as a Christian, because I don't know of any denomination that matches my beliefs..

What you call your "understanding about gurus" as you offer it, is put forth as a broadly negative sweeping generalization which does not account for different individual cases. Even the way you say it is telling. By the same token I could say, "I understood about bigots years before I made spiritual contact with Christ".

This is probably the umpteenth time someone here has mentioned this regarding the penchant for making this meaningless generalization, as well as additionally pointing out the intellectual fallacy (because they are arbitrary), and the resulting real-life implications of making such blanket generalizations (potentially damaging in an instance not conforming to the generalization). As another substitution exercise to illumine the foolishness of such generalizations I am sure you can think of some parallel generalizations regarding race that will illustrate my point quite easily.

recoverer said,
Quote:

I don't believe that Christ is the only light being who exists. I believe there are many wonderful light beings.  I believe that we are all destined to become light beings. However, while living in this World, I believe that most of us are limited in our understanding, just as I am. This doesn't mean that we don't have anything to share with others. However, we shouldn't lable ourselves in a way that implies that we are all knowing (e.g., "I'm enlightened"), when we aren't. .

One at a time:
(a) Christ is not the only light being. Accepted.
(b) There are many wonderful light beings. Accepted.
(c) We are all destined to becoming light beings. Accepted.
(d) We are limited in our consciousness while in the physical due to ignorance. Accepted.
(e) We have things to share with others in our journeys. Accepted. But - here is where a problem starts: What do we choose to share, especially if we agree that we are limited  in our understanding? That limitation opens the door for some question as to what needs to be shared and what doesn't.  

As to "enlightened" -
(1) saying one is "enlightened" when they are. I addressed that quandry in the off-topic area
(2) "when we aren't" implies there is no case in which this might be true.
I guess this brings up the question of whether you believe it is possible for a human to be fully enlightened, God-realized, etc.
For me, I accept it as real.
(3) saying one is enlightened when they aren't.
Who makes the call in that case? You? Ok for yourself, but not for me. What if you think they aren't but they are? How might that effect (e)or even a pursuit of (c) for that matter? If they say they are, but they aren't, then people will have their own direct experience according to their own necessity and make their own conclusions (as per their own guidance) - they have to do this anyway, r, without your intercessional "warnings", again, based on (d). Also, as a variant using another profession: Suppose someone claims to be a "Master Electrician" but they are far from it. Does that mean that a person who needs to have a light switch changed should not employ them? Point is - there is a continuum of need and fulfilment with all kinds of messy untidy definitions and interdependancies - including that a person may play many roles simultaneously. This was well discussed in my first post in this thread.  Life involves the exploration and navigation of those issues in infinite possibility and variation and having the direct experience of it - not mediated by you, unless you are saying that you are fully enlightened?
Is that where this is going?  

For me the whole silly argument comes down to this: The creation was designed for maximum access by differentiated beings. God (or the Highest) within each being is responsible for the consequences of exploring that access according to individual need, receptivity and capacity. If you want to attempt to limit others' access based on an admittedly limited understanding, please try to understand that that does not constitute the engagement of your own similar God-given right to explore your own access. It is instead, a projection of that "limited understanding" towards a negation of others' search. It imposes an assumed "rational" objectivity onto a recipient which may be more acceptable in moral, ethical intellectual context, but in the spiritual context, other "rules" apply - mainly, that the individual subjective experience becomes primary. Now if you wanted to end up with some kind of fascist theocracy where even if you couldn't define your own beliefs as a "denomination", you could still employ some sweeping generalizations based on limited understanding/ignorance to deny, disparage, restrict others' access to (b) according to you, this is where you seem to be going with your intent. The inevitable conclusion of this intention may also be seen demonstrated in Mr Ross.

What you consistently propose r, is that according to your admittedly limited consciousness, you not only have a right, but an obligation to intercede on behalf of other beings and illumine them on what according to your limited understanding, is not "authentic". What if you are not authentic? How about just deal with your own experiences - ie:. inspire people with something positive from your own search. But throw a wet blanket on others? I know that in my own case alone, what you have projected is not valid for me because it has not been my direct experience, so just on my account alone your premise and action is wrong. There are others too, you have basically told that they do not have a right to be inspired by, to access certain sources you feel are "fake" - all because of your admittedly "limited understanding" - when in truth and fact this flies in the face of their own testitimony that it did inspire them, did help them, did transform them, did solve their problems etc. So, how can you ignore that? Are you deaf? Blind? Or maybe you are trying to raise some tax on their inspiration? Should they pay tribute to your ignorance by denying their own experience and conclusions? Do you really want to be that kind of a bully? This has been tried and it does not work.  Being God's self-appointed spiritual "gatekeeper" to others does not work for spiritual quest. It might work for corporate, institutional, financial, scientific - a whole host of "outer world" mundane phenomena, where so-called rational "objectivity" rules, but not in spirituality. In that spiritual context, one person's ignorance is enough to deal with. In that context, a shift has taken place in which all those "objective" issues are dealt with individually, internally, subjectively. In the spiritual life there really can be no other way. This is actually part of what the spiritual life is.

recoverer said,
Quote:

When it comes to reverence, reverence is something we can feel towards every other being who exists, just as we can have love and respect for all other beings..

Ahhhh. A breath of fresh air.
See? What I'm talkin about!!
And why do we feel that way? Because it is the divine within each. The same divine that will guide each.

(Even though you did not answer my question on the distinction between reverance vs. pedestal, but I'll let it go for now)

recoverer said,
Quote:

There is nothing wrong with being able to see that false sources of information exist. It is rather intrusive of you to suggest that I don't have the right to use my discrimination. I find it incredibly unfair for you to think that you can speak about various sources with complete freedom, yet somebody else who has found out differently has no right to speak at all.  .

Yes, for yourself....discrimminate away...
Let's discrimminate further:
What is actually intrusive to your mind r, is that I simply quoted and referred to sources you don't happen to like or use, for whatever deep seated prejudice as manifested by some silly sweeping generalizations you think you must impose on others.

Of course you are entitled to your discrimmination, but I have not spoken ABOUT sources. I have quoted, referenced or linked to passages of text written by those sources that were on topic, relevant and responsive within the context of the threads. You never once addressed those items in and of themselves r, but went into imo childish emotionally reactive accusations of "fake" about the sources. You have used this ploy in many other discussions referencing other sources. It seems that there were a few brave and intellectually honest members who were able to discuss the passages on their own merits - or at least acknowledge them, or just read them and assess the intrinsic truth value without comment, but you were not able to do so. Now, before anyone asserts that "in a debate" this issue of attacking source in this way is valid, let me point out that what this attempts to do is, e.g.: In a discussion on the aesthetics of paintings to say, "Van Gogh's paintings suck and I can't look at them or discuss them, because he supposedly cut his ear off, and I don't like that!! I'm going home, but not before I ruin the party by changing the subject to the bloody ear..." That would be my definition of intrusion relative to this issue.

recoverer said,
Quote:

At this time I'm not perfectly clear about what to do with matters like this matter. On the one hand, if I know better about a false source, I feel compelled to share my knowledge even if some people believe I'm a disgruntled creep for doing so. On the other hand, I don't want to be disrespectful about the beliefs of others..

R, I am sure you are not a disgruntled creep, but you often sound like one, to me anyway. I hear bitterness residing nervously in many of your comments of this nature. I can't tell you what to do, but it seems that for all the discussion on PUL, that an application of it to this matter might prove to be useful. Can you imagine that you could be wrong? Can you imagine that your comments can be damaging to others? What kind of comment does the least harm? I can tell you that from my pov - your current approach seems not pure (based on the limits and distortions of individual ignorance), and not unconditional (ie others' choices must meet your conditions in order to be accepted in oneness). And that is not love - certainly not PUL. It may be some kind of moral or intellectual judgement which tends toward divisiveness. Good for debates that end in fights and hurt feelings, but is that your intention for participation here? I don't think so because I've seen plenty of your posts that do not do this and they are very inspiring to me and I am sure others as well, but when you begin to insert "that other stuff", imo you are undermining your own effectiveness and credibility (must you say those things to make your points?), as well possibly discouraging and doing damage in some way to others, especially new people with less experience.

recoverer said,
Quote:

This is a public forum. People do at times state when they don't believe what a source of information has to say. In fact, this is how this thread started out. I believe it was fine for Alan to write what he wrote. If we humans can't discuss our varying ideas, where does this leave us?.

I agree. That's why I bring all this up. Also, these discussions can never imo establish any "objective truth" by debating. Nobody is ever going to win nor is that really the point for a forum such as this. If anything, these discussions serve as much or more to reveal issues within the process of seeking and searching itself.

It is fine to reveal one's belief's: "I don't believe this" , "I do believe that", "These are my beliefs.", "Those are not my beliefs".
But unfortunately that is not what is being discussed now.



recoverer said,
Quote:

Ultra, why is it that you're so defensive about this? I've become defensive when people have said things about Christ that seem to minimalize his role. In some ways it was wrong for me to do so, because for the most part the people who have done so, seem to be loving people who have good intentions. They are mainly people who have been turned off by the things you see in fundamentalism, just as I have been turned off by fundamentalism.

I think I am being pro-active and not defensive.
My position is the same on Christ, Chinmoy, ACIM, Osho, Seth, Elias, Urantia, Hilarion, you name it. If it works for somebody - anybody, even one person, it is not my right to disparage. Especially if they tell me it helped them. We could talk about the content though without having to insult peoples choices and interests....Believe me, there are plenty of sources people use that I do not have a high opinion of, and.....that is why I simply do not use those sources.. In many cases I established my opinion not by arguing on a discussion forum and letting other people mediate my awareness by disparaging the source, but by directly investigating the products of those sources and determining the merit for my own search directly. Amazingly, even in the cases of things I ended up having the lowest regard for, I still think I was able to learn something positive and useful from the exposure. Some even played the role of "stepping stones" at one time and I no longer use them - not because they were "fake", but because I have simply moved on in those cases.

If another person is finding merit and utility in those same sources at this time in THEIR life at this moment, who am I to discourage them? Is that an expression of PUL? I seriously do not think so. Why should I disparage someone's quest by essentially saying, "You know, what you like and use is fake. The inspiration, the progress, the positive shifts you are experiencing are really not valid as a result. In fact, you are not even having them because I don't like your source. I know this and you don't. This is why I am telling you - out of my goodness". This is too big of a responsibility - It is a very complex landscape with first of all and encompassing everything else that follows: God's Will in and through any person,  soul promises, karmic connections, debts and liabilities, aspirations, degrees of receptivity and capacity, free will, etc. Are you really wanting to get involved in that? Personally, I want to trust that the divine within anyone's search will guide them, even if they make "mistakes", which is also not my call.

From a less philsophical pov and related to forum function, I think if you want to approach your premise more constructively, and if it is such an urgent matter to warn others (perhaps because you do not trust that the divine is operating within them (as in reverance for all beings) - you could simply start threads called:   "__X__ is a fake",  and then the discussion could proceed directly in that course without having to "railroad" so many threads off topic. As you can see by my off-topic response to you, I am not averse to such explorations. Maybe others would not find them distasteful either. But that particular exploration was not the original intention of the threads I introduced passages of text into, or simply discussed issues brought up without making external references.  Either that - or please be intellectually honest enough to make the effort to actually read and comment on the quoted passage itself as it pertains to the discussion once in a while, instead of having to assasinate the author of the passage as a substitute.  

This brings up a related issue - that of "thought police". People need to realize that this concept "swings both ways". What I mean is that when someone introduces on-topic, relevant, responsive quotes/links/referencess to text from authors they use and are inspired by, and the repeated response is an attack on the author (or even the poster, accused of "promoting" certain authors) without any attempt to discuss the actual material itself as it applies to the thread, this has a potentially conditioning effect on anybody who might want to post or refer to passages from any source. One may begin at some point to feel guilty, apologetic or hesitant and not even try to make a sincere contribution based on what their individual experience encompasses, because they have seen or experienced this kind of response to theirs or others' contribution -ie: it was not treated with due respect. There are whole long threads that exemplify this point.  

recoverer said,
Quote:

Please notice the chronology on this thread, and realize that I started out by saying very little about false gurus. I did so for a constructive purpose. I didn't say more until you became involved. Was it unreasonable for me to respond in some way?.

I agree with you up to a point. The initiating impetus for this aspect of the discussion was your positing the following premise:
That: "gurus who point to themselves are necessarily fake", or something similar. My response to that premise was my very first post in this thread in which I took the ball and ran with it a little, also for a constructive purpose, in which I never mentioned Chinmoy - in another instance of initiating a certain direction that is - diverting topic to accuse sources not liked as being fake. Well, like they say in the lawyer shows: "You opened the door counselor. I'll allow it". I was simply being responsive to your direction, but also had to divert that part of the discussion into off- topic for those reasons mentioned above, something that should also speak illustratively to the issue at hand.

One last thing. After I read the post I am now responding to, I was wondering what to make of it and asked for some assistance. I went for a long walk and returned some stuff at a store. On the way back I found myself walking not too far behind a fairly young dad and his todler son, who was so young he was barely able to hold the bat and ball and walk at the same time. (I guess they were going to a nearby school yard). As I got closer I heard the young boy asking his father to teach him how to play baseball. When he said this we were all passing in front of a house where there was an old "grandpa" type of guy in his front yard puttering around, who also heard the boy say this. The old man immediately said, "Your dad is the best baseball teacher in the whole world". The dad smiled, acknowledging the man. Now, from a so-called objective, moral, ethical pov, a great fraud had been perpetrated: Grandpa lied, the boy was mislead, and dad on behalf of his huge ego accepted the false flattery making him comlplicit in the fraud against his son at the boy's own expense. But from a pov of PUL, everybody was a winner, even me who witnessed the whole thing which I was grateful for, because it seemed to sum up this whole dilemma.

- u

Hi Sterneeksplosjon,

Sorry for the delay -
You are welcomed and thank you for being so generous yourself.
...So much politeness - I feel I must be more cynical now...haha.....
Some more comments/impressions based on what you wrote:

You have shared a lot in an open way that must have a common characteristic with how you approach life - yes?
I cannot comment on the specific things you mentioned, but according to what you wrote, it seems you have done and are doing many things and are not afraid to search at all - AND - you listen to your inner feelings. That takes courage, persistence, openmindedness.

What kind of standard are you judging yourself by? Relax - let God do the judging. Oh, right....hmmm.
But do you get what I am saying? Why be so hard on your self?  

Maybe your fear of death is associated with a difficult episode from your "past" or "other" lives which is much influencing your consciousness now. You mentioned dave_a_mbs. It is too bad he is not here now as he could probably say many helpful things about this as it is his expertise if that is indeed the issue. I don't know. But also you could sit down and meditate on it yourself. I'll bet you probably have done this. Also, your exploration of Bruce's material represents the classic constructive approach of directly investigating and learning about what we fear so as to see about the unknown element of it, transforming it into the known.      Related to that, here is a radical idea, a creative exercise/thought experiment to remove fear. Pretend you are already dead, and are now in the afterlife at this moment. A pervasive and persistent fear of death has the effect of killing life anyway, right? So, just pretend you are dead now, in the afterlife, and there are no problems - and just live. Try this in the imagination for a day and see how it alters your reality. See? - how bad is it? Not that bad. Afterall, Life is really the "afterlife" of the afterlife if you get what I am saying (even though that statement implies reincarnation). If you don't believe in that afterlife, then at least believe in this one. So just switch them in your consciousness. it is your consciousness that has the continuity through all the afterlives, afterlives, and afterlives - see?

Perhaps because of certain cultural, religious, social, etc. conditioning or whatever, many people think there are only 2 ways to operate and they end up "ping-ponging" anxiously between them thinking one will relieve the other: Either rigid, rational seriousness, which becomes very stressfull leading to a reaction ---> its polarity in:  careless thoughtless "entertainment" which turns out is not always so relaxing, and can sometimes be destructive, or empty. Since neither is fulfilling people get anxious or depressed. Just because you take life "seriously" does not mean that relaxing the mind, nerves, expectations, self-judgement, etc - or having humor, joy, sweetness etc. are not within and part of that seriousness. Then things can "flow" better without the reactive bouncing back and forth which causes so much stress and depression. I have no idea if this is your situation. I am just offering ideas to you.

Speaking of relaxing...
Is it true what they say about the stereotyped brooding Scandinavian?
If so, then try immediately getting yourself to this focus level: the hill towns of Tuscany!!  
And speaking of other countries -
It never ceases to amaze me as an "ignorant American", how many people from other countries have such a great command of the English language that they can intelligently participate in a forum such as this one, while I can barely spell "Stjerneeksplosjon". I saw some discussion on changing that name. I hope you keep it so I can practice my very limited Norwegian vocabulary of this one word.

Apparently you are very active, more than you may realize -- the issue then may be more about: in what light do you see your own search process - as in negative/positive or, in expecting, demanding certain results in a form that may be predefined, thus not allowing to see the new within what is happening. In other words  - all that stuff you mentioned in your post that you have been doing is all part of your search. You have not been failing in your search. Failure means not doing anything and you have been doing many things. That is the searching.

The main thing is to just persist with a positive attitude - which becomes in itself the result - regardless of what form it takes. It will always lead to something, because in a sense, it is the movement itself that is the goal. This concept is not always so obvious, for one thing because of deep-seated cultural, moral, ethical contitioning about what constitutes "work", "progress", "success","result", "value", etc. for humans in our culture. The meanings of these concepts shift when applied in a spiritual context vs. a mundane social and economic one. This can take some getting used to - as in "acclimatizing" to new spiritual life definitions like the way mountain climbers have to spend time at "altitude" to adjust to new conditions.

If you read biographies of spiritual and creative people, even the most developed who had great achievements went through "dry periods" or periods of great confusion - as preparation occurs and consciousness shifts and expands, dipping a toe, then a foot, etc., into the unfamiliar. Periods of culmination when there is new awareness, are the results of sometimes much, much longer periods of preparation, sometimes and often unconsciously so, when the confusion seems the worst, because one is exploring things that are so new and unfamiliar that one does not even recognize "it" - ie: the activity, the purpose (as defined by the rational mind) -- but the internal guidance has lead one and placed one into the right context with the appropriate "problems" to work through and solve, and why it is absolutely essential to maintain a cheerful positive openminded attitude no matter what happens. As a very extreme example, look what happened to Nelson Mandela - 27 years in prison, torture, etc. but he kept such a consistent positive attitude that the racist guards could not help but grow to respect and admire him. They even sought his council. That was the "unseen" preparation for a Nobel prize and transformative leadership of an entire country, and world class example of human dignity. No doubt he is a very unusual and gifted soul, but the point is - imagine if he had become cynical?

On the other side of preparation periods and their culminations are those of assimilation where the meaning of those explorations and preparations once accomplished and revealed must get incorporated into the practical life, leading again to the next cycle. Notice, no mention in all of this of frustration - which comes from expectation. Better to do your best and accept the results than to expect outcomes and get frustrated which can lead to cynicism. Try to remain cheerful/positive while active in searching with an open mind and heart and do not expect or judge outcomes. That is a practical way to keep a positive attitude which is not an artificial contrivance but simply a powerful practical tool to alter reality for more abiding satisfaction.

As part of the above mentioned "confusion mode", it is very common for seekers to have gone through a period where they appear to themselves to be "crashing around" seemingly almost arbitrarily hopping from one thing to another - practice, interest, affiliation, reading, teachers, relationships, all kinds of things - on and on. This can last for years, but is then mostly seen in retrospect as a very thorough exposure, screening, testing and eventual narrowing of focus. It can be at the beginning of a life or part of a new chapter within life midstream. No one is the same, but many do experience some form of this.

Ritual and ceremony means an active form of outer sameness - externally applied conformity no matter what the inner "weather". Of course that can be boring because it is intractably unresponsive to immediate inner need which may change. For my own needs, that seems too much part of 'old school religion'. But maybe some need this as part of establishing discipline, absorbing the symbolic content of the ritual though reiteration,  or just in learning what conformity is......Regular practice on the other hand can also mean discipline as in regular application to some principle, just like we eat and sleep every day, but that does not mean we have to eat the same thing every day or have the same dreams every night - ie: allowing for spontaneous responsive adjustment. There is a difference.

As to patience in meditation: I have made meditation a cornerstone of my practice and consider it essential, as do many.
It takes time and patience to develop it, and this development is a continuous process that never ends. There is an old story about a man who was having trouble meditating and went to a master for help. Perhaps in a variation of a man going to the doctor and being told, "Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.", the master said, "Keep meditating everyday and come back to see me in three years". This illustrates the relative scope of the issue. It takes time and patience, but that is the beauty of doing a little bit each day. On a practical level, meditation does not have to, nor should it be boring or ritualistic/ceremonial. There are many many forms, and even in a regular personal practice, how it is done can change according to need on a day to day basis - especially until one may find a particular "type" that intuitively feels right or more urgent at any given time.  One can even induce meditative states while walking. I usually do this in the evening around dusk as there is peace at that time. But there needs to be when doing this a calm deliberate vigilant "mindfulness" of the process and re-focusing when distraction happens. If it is a physical/restlessness issue, assuming you are interested in persuing further - - you might try a daily aerobic type of exercise, like running, cycling or swimming, or take longer walks if you have the time -  just something to use the "vital life energy"in a dynamic way so that restlessness can be calmed down. Those things approached with a certain attitude in themselves can be very transformational as much as meditation. At a time in my life when I was going through what you seem to be experiencing, before I had any kind of "practice" as I would define it now (or regular "work" work for that matter), I used to put some money in my pocket and just go walking into oblivion for hours and hours, even the better part of a day - really far, with no plan, direction or destination (well, eventually I got back home). I know wanderer types who did this and have not yet returned. One guy went out to "go buy a pack of cigarettes" and on a whim,  just kept going and never stopped. Point is - it is amazing how the lack of structure, confinement or expectation gives a new orientation and frees and relaxes the mind. Then later, as a result of the open search, a need for some structure may occur, but then it is based on some authentic internal need as revealed, and not some external (and therefore arbitrary) imposition or expectation.

Imo, it really does matter who you associate with. Inspiring people who are doing inspiring things will light up and support your own inspiration and encourage a positive search process because that is what they are doing themselves. It is another form of conditioning - who and why you associate with others. Likewise people with negative intent, no matter how skillful and clever they may be will drag you down. I once heard a very good artist say, "You know, when I show my work with bad artists it just doesn't look good". Also by exposing to positive people who are looking for truth, you get a much bigger perspective in and through others' eyes, which helps you to see you are not alone in what you are doing, that others are having the same problems, that others have solved similar problems (and how), etc. These people are out there and they are all thinking the same thing: "Am I strange? Am I the only one who thinks like this, or is interested in this?" It is what happens when elements of consciousness that are latent and dormant begin to wake up, then everybody wants to get together to compare notes and work on the new thing.

This can also be a part of the role that reading plays within the same function. (If you can't find those inspiring examples of people in the "real world" at the moment - then read about them, listen to radio interviews with them, see films, etc. That will set the stage for the real ones to enter because your energy in recognizing what you need and what interests you in others will resonate and attract similar ones in the physical.) That can be very re-assuring and why people seek others with common interest  - you just need to discrimminate more and more clearly what those interests are, and choose more and more consistently and carefully who else matches those requirements.  

Final comments:
On crying etc. - could be a sign of heart opening/more direct soul contact. Sometimes this is the way the soul makes a forceful appearance, when the mind has previously been doing "all the talking". Or it is the resulting symbol through emotion that a message of the soul has actually been listened to. It means a response to feeling oneness with others' experience - as in empathy/identification - or in recognizing and appreciating powerful archetypal symbols as within oneself (otherwise how would you recognize them?) instead of mentally dismissing or trivializing them as something external you don't need to, or want to  pay much attention to. It also means identifying with others' suffering as well, because that is part of acceptance of the whole, vs a projection of the particular onto the general.
 
Also, I have no idea how much "free time" you have, but what about other explorations of creative thinking like art, music, writing etc. -  they are great ways to open heart and develop intuition, etc.

Based on what you now say, maybe not "Jnana", but maybe you are more of a "bhakti" (devotional) person. Even though these designations are somewhat artificial, and they overlap, and eventually all converge - people may at times have one or another of these attributes dominant or need to explore it even though nobody is purely one or another.  If you look up "bhakti" on wiki you will see a decidedly Indian orientation, however "devotion" as an approach is also exemplified in the West through Christianity, even though they too have elements (like the Jesuits) that embody a more Jnana approach. A negative manifestation of devotion is fanaticism ("my way is the only way") and that is also evidenced by Christianity at times. Buddhism, even Judaism seems more Jnana, more philosophical, in their positive expressions.  

Hope there are a few useful ideas here in all this rambling.
Really, you are not alone in what you are going through.
Best regards,

- u

Ultra:

I have only one more thing to say. I believe it is possible for a person to reach the point where they can determine whether a source of information is what it claims to be. All a person has to do is try. A hard thing to do if a person is intent on coming up with justifications and rationalizations for the source they want to defend. I know of people who have found the same as me. They aren't negative people. They are people who through experience have learned the hard way. Perhaps sometimes it is okay for them to share their experience with others. What a sad World this World would be if we couldn't share our experience with others.

recoverer said
Quote:

I have only one more thing to say. I believe it is possible for a person to reach the point where they can determine whether a source of information is what it claims to be. All a person has to do is try. A hard thing to do if a person is intent on coming up with justifications and rationalizations for the source they want to defend. I know of people who have found the same as me. They aren't negative people. They are people who through experience have learned the hard way. Perhaps sometimes it is okay for them to share their experience with others. What a sad World this World would be if we couldn't share our experience with others.

recoverer,

In some very real sense this World is already a sad World, and has been for a long time. This is not a "would be" proposition. Just look around. Likewise, we've already been "sharing these experiences" and "learning the hard way" with others for millenia - and in the same sense, that has been profoundly, painfully dissatisfying.

Then, ask yourself - why?

I do not think it is because of some "boogeyman" outside of ourselves.
Perhaps it is because our own ignorance is the thing being rationalized, defended, and even cherished. Fortunately, each one of us gets to "reach the point" where we choose to change that, yet we all share the results of those choices as well.

So as you can see, I am 100% in agreement with you.


- u

ps - I am also inclined to terminate this particular vein of discussion, unless you want to introduce anything new, since many key points have now been clearly established and reiterated numerous times.

Ultra:

Nothing more to say. Some would say that even though it is okay for people to share their experience with others, it isn't okay to share one's extensive experience with gurus.

I do appreciate your interest in standing up for that which you believe to be divine. Nothing wrong with that.

If you ever see me refer to a source you know to be false, feel completely free to tell me.