Sir Darius the Clairvoyent

Get back to us, you got my imagination going.

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty." ^ this is my Jesus tho. Could read it a thouasand times and never get tired of it.

Ty for introducing me to something New, tho: Avalokiteśvara was translated into Guanyin or Guanshiyin 觀世音 in Chinese, which means “the one who hears (the world’s) sounds” – in the sense of hearing the world’s prayers – and has become the most important bodhisattva in Chinese and East Asian Buddhism. These two names were later borrowed into Japanese as Kannon and Kanzeon, respectively. It is good wording, I belive. Not suggesting that I have any thing to say on it after reading a paragraph fron wiki, however.

It should, that is where virtue comes in, IMO.

alright, let me just share my take on this. I stress that it is my own, I am not talking on behalf of anyone. But I see prayer as not to different from meditating on a concept. Giving thanks, maybe, and maybe you direct that towards God, or nature or the universe or what have you, but I really do not think it matters. Nor do I think the words used matters. Do I have to tell the gods anything, and do they speak Norwegian or english?

Also, we have the much more… fiery view from Nietzche. He uses some terms you might want to avoid useing on a first date, but we are all grown ups, no?

This one: Meek in the Greek literature of the period most often meant gentle or soft. Nolland writes that a more accurate interpretation for this verse is powerless.[5] Clarke notes how important and revolutionary this elevation of meekness was in the Mediterranean societies of the time that placed enormous stock in honor and status.[6]Strong's entry for the Greek word praus lists it as "mild, gentle".[7] ? I must say, it is a very curious concept in a way. Let me share a passage from the foreword of Epictetus work, written by Viggo Johansen on the stoic influence on christianity. Think you might enjoy it:

I like that very much. Meditations, second book, paragraph III: III. What comes from the gods is permeated by their providence. The work of fate is not nature foreign, nor is it different from the web that is woven by fortune. Everything flows from there. The necessary comes from it, and what benefits the entire universe that you are a part of. What all-nature gives, and what serves to sustain it, is also good for every part of nature. The world is sustained by change, changes in the things that the elements form, as much as the elements themselves. Let that be enough for you if you accept these teachings. Free yourself from your thirst for books, so that you do not die with rebellion in your heart, but sincerely content and with a heart grateful to the gods.

Let me offer a radically different perception of «it,» for a moment, if only as a thought experiment. How about fully embracing this very personal and limited experience can be very fulfilling? That instead of trying to escape it, you say yes from the bottom of your heart, even your perception might or might not be in accordance to the underlying… what term would you prefer here? I think you would prefer no term, but can we call it reality?

Let me repeat something I just read ans commented on in another thread: the chinese translation of the greek term Logos (the Word in english). They translate it as Dao. This was helpfull info for me aswell, since it gave me a lense to understand dao better with. So lets see: John 1 King James Version 1 In the beginning was the Word/logos/Dao, and the Word/logos/Dao was with God, and the Word/logos/Dao was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Another interresting curiousity, is, I belive, that in the works of Aurelius and Epictetus, the term gods and nature are used interchangebly.

The chinese apperantly use the term dao to translate logos (the Word) in the New testament… the more you learn!

Want a biblical answer? Teaching About Prayer. 5“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you. 7* In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.* 8Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him. The Lord’s Prayer. 9* “This is how you are to pray:c Our Father in heaven,* hallowed be your name, 10your kingdom come,* your will be done, on earth as in heaven.d 11* e Give us today our daily bread; 12and forgive us our debts,* as we forgive our debtors;f 13and do not subject us to the final test,* but deliver us from the evil one.g 14* If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.h 15But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions. Look at 8 there. The way I see it, if you pray or meditate on the highest principle, there should be no need for words. Here is another one for you; "O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed, courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen."

truly there is no escaping him, for better or for worse. May I reccomend the gospel of Thomas to you?

https://graham-pemberton.medium.com/whats-wrong-with-christianity-carl-jung-and-the-divine-feminine-fbb5dca935f4

You can critize the faith for a lot, but one thing I think you can not deny, is the power of the Christ narrative. Off which being born in a stable, God incarnate and sacrifised and risen again are fundemental. Although if you acctually, literally buy all of this, I would say you are on the same intellectual caliber as those who belive thunder is the result of Thor beating his hammer or that the rainbow is the messenger of the gods, even today.

Im all for it. I often ponder how this one faith went from an obscure cult, to a very diverse sets of belief to the religion. Find me one man that has not heard about Christ today. What I am most curious about, is if some of the greek mysteries got perserved in a masked form 👀

One thing I acctually think is quite strange about christianity, historically speaking, is some of its values. Like the meek shall inheirit the earth..? Everyone being equal in the eyes of God (no superior or inferior, slave or master, barbarian or citizien, jew or gentile). I somehow doubt that was mainstream thought in the early roman empire, but maybe I am wrong.

So, in many languages the word for breath and spirit is the same. Here is a quick wiki search: The word spirit (ånd) originally meant breath (pust). Spirit in greek is called pneuma, nous, im latin spiritus, mens, animus or anima, hebrew ruach, arabic ruh, english mind or spirit, french esprit and german Geist. So, that is quite an amount of languages where breath/spirit is or originates from the same word. The Norwegian term, as mentioned, is ånd. Incredibly, this is cognate to sanskrit atman: also originally meaning breath. In order not to butched the vedic/hindu tradition, ill let britannica explain the term today: atman, one of the most basic concepts in Hinduism, the universal self, identical with the eternal core of the personality that after death either transmigrates to a new life or attains release (moksha) from the bonds of existence. In the norse creation myth, the first humans are pieces of wood that Odin, Villi and Ve breathes life (and various charictaristics, like the will, hence the name Villi). This naturally sounds very familiar to genesis, where God also breathes a divine spark into mankind. I wonder if this is an innate human… «archetype,» or if it may be the legacy of the indo european wind deity: H₂weh₁-yú is believed to be a god who controls the wind. He came from Proto Indo European Mythology and many cultures have gods that came from him.[1] His name comes from the Proto-Indo-European word for "blow".[2][1] In some traditions, he is shown as two gods who control different types of wind. Other cultures have similar gods, with names like Vayu-Vātaand Vāyu.[1] The god is also linked to the idea of giving and taking breath, which connects him to life and death.[3] Many Indo-European languages have words for wind that come from the same root as H₂weh₁-yú including the English wind.[1] Most people here, are, I assume, native english speakers. It is curious that the word wind, to wander and wonder are so similar, no?

I get the sentiment, but two quick counter points: 1. I belive you are making a little bit of a strawman here. I think the amount of people that interpet the virgin birth symbolically, as a literary tool, far out weighs the amount of people who think Yahwe put his penis inside virgin Mary. 2. We are talking a very «canonized» christianity, which, as we all know, has been strongly regulated and abused trough the centuries. I think we would see a big difference if it was allowed to grow organically, as I think most religions once did. Christianity even, in its very beginnings.

One, by definition.

You know, ironically, what you say is «true.» But curious, how do you propose we avoid human conceptions, when that is all we know? In my language the word for truth is not truth, but «sannhet.» Still, you can be confident that we are talking about the exact same thing. And yes, I made an assumption in my introductionary post. That was meant as nothing but my interpertation, and maybe I should have avoided it all together. Allow me to continue on topics I know nothing about. One paragraph from britannica on mystisism: Cant say I grasp «nothingness» tbh. Unity, however, I do.

Meditations, second book, paragraph III: III. What comes from the gods is permeated by their providence. The work of fate is not nature foreign, nor is it different from the web that is woven by fortune. Everything flows from there. The necessary comes from it, and what benefits the entire universe that you are a part of. What all-nature gives, and what serves to sustain it, is also good for every part of nature. The world is sustained by change, changes in the things that the elements form, as much as the elements themselves. Let that be enough for you if you accept these teachings. Free yourself from your thirst for books, so that you do not die with rebellion in your heart, but sincerely content and with a heart grateful to the gods. His mentality is truly unmatched, in my opinion.

So one I said oneness in my opening post.. that is kind of what you are talking about, no?

Alright, but does the maps describe the same terrain but with different symbolism?

I get where you are comming from, but is it acctually that different from prayer, charity work, sufi dancing, church choir etc?