-
Content count
5,254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Everything posted by Jeff
-
No problem. I had assumed that since you had started responding to my questions to RongzomFan, that meant that you were interested in the discussion or had a position on the topic. Also, my question was based on the "logic" of the reasoning and not the underlying theory/perspective.
-
So, you do not "assert or deny" that things exist? Is that correct? Do you agree or disagree with RongzamFan's position of "First off, this universe is completely equivalent with illusion"?
-
We were discussion the logic of RongzamFan's position as quoted from Malcolm/Namdrol. "As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms" Do you find this statement to be logical without a predefined assumption? That there is no assumption that the "arising of something existent" does not happen? Why could one not easily define the existence of something from which everything arises and then the statement posted above is not correct?
-
A theory (based upon assumptions) was presented. I was just pointing out the both the logic problems and existing "provable" facts which are different than RongzamFan's position. Do you have any evidence to support his position?
-
Ok, I had hoped you would use your own words, but let's take a look at what you have copied above... "As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms" How is this statement logical without a predefined assumption? The author is assuming that the "arising of something existent" does not happen. One could easily define the existence of something from which everything arises and then the statement posted above is not correct. Also, regarding the second part "the arising of an existent from a non-existent is impossible", modern physics has already shown that this is not a true or correct statement. I would suggest that you take a look at the recent work on Higg's fields.
-
You seem to be avoiding the detailed analysis...
-
OK, since it is your position... Start from the beginning. Let's hear it. We can analyze it step by step.
-
Again, this statement does not support your position. It is a logic statement assuming "If an entity in itself does not exist". One has not proved that something does not exist yet. You are just assuming and jumping to the end with no supporting data for your assumption. Even theories have some level of supporting data. (edit has -> have)
-
Again, do you have any facts or evidence to support your position? Quotes are just hearsay. In addition, each of the quotes you have chosen are just statements. None of them have any supporting evidence and seem to just assume that it is true. Look at the below example... Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other." Candrakirti bases the position on the statement/assumption "because there is nothing other". Finally, I am personally not taking a position one way or another. But, in all of your posts, you have provided no actual evidence to support your assumption.
-
Let's attempt to stay with the logical analysis. You have stated as a definitive position that "everything is illusion" and based your analysis on that point. But, you have provided no proof to support your supposition. Do you have any empirical and verifiable support for your position? Or, is it all just hearsay?
-
Can you prove this point? All you have done is listed hearsay positions of others. I don't see how that is intellectually any different than saying that God created everything from himself. Best, Jeff
-
24) His disciples said to Him, "Show us the place where You are, since it is necessary for us to seek it." He said to them, "Whoever has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and he (or "it") lights up the whole world. If he (or "it") does not shine, he (or "it") is darkness." This is actually one of my favorite verses in the Gospel of Thomas. To me, a "man of light" is one who has realized the primordial light of God. He/she have moved beyond the obstructions (ego) and knows that the light and energy is not stored in them or theirs, but that it "flows through". When allowed to flow through it is "brought into" and shared with the with the whole world. If it does not flow through (or one thinks of it as there own light/energy), then they are still in darkness (ego). Also, I would say that a "man of light" feels an almost uncontrollable flow to share the light with others. (Edit - format issue)
-
What would be the whole new debate?
-
Ultimately, we are really all one in God, but are there not different levels of "seeing" it. Kind of like the difference of between the realization of an initiate and the realization of a lama/teacher.
-
Hi Apech, I think that makes a lot of sense. The only thing that I would add is that I think that the 1/1000 and 2/10,000 are implying different levels of advancement. Sort of 1/1000 is an initiate and only a percentage move on to higher levels. I also think that the single one references that we are all "one in Christ".
-
23) Jesus said, "I shall choose you, one out of a thousand, and two out of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one." To me, in this verse, Jesus is describing that not all are ready (or as spiritually advanced), similar to the analogies of seeds landing on the fertile ground or stone. The interesting point for me is the "standing as a single one." Anyone have any thoughts on that?
-
Let's start with your first point listed. Can you prove the above statement in any way?
-
Hi Cueball, I think that you raise some very good points in the post above. On likeness in place of likeness, I have found it to relate to the sort of shift of ones awareness. In a light transmission, one overlays ones focus on the other being. It is almost like you merge or slip into to the other form (likeness). On unification and the bridal chamber... The bridal chamber is the deeper unification with Christ and beyond the world (consciousness). One needs to first integrate the male and female sides, because one side sort of operates in the consciousness and the other receives (or operates beyond consciousness) at a primordial depth/level. This is also why many other primordial traditions have the concept of a divine consort. If one does first integrate the two sides, you don't maintain stability as an individual aspect of creation and sort of cease into God/primordial awareness.
-
I also hope that others add to the discussion. 22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to His disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom." They said to Him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the Kingdom?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the Kingdom]." This verse is very deep and profound. It gives some understanding into the more advanced states of Christian Mysticism. It points to the levels beyond the realization of the soul. The description of a suckling child corresponds to complete surrender with all sustenance coming from God (as a child with a mother). The question is asking about greater detail regarding the description of this state. The first level described is when the inside and the outside become the same. In "oneness" one realizes that the outside world is no different than the projections and thoughts of your inside mind. With that realization, one know that the above (heaven) and the below (world) are the same and not to be found outside of you. Jesus then goes on to describe the next level. The original human (Adam) is both male & female. One brings together these two aspects and the associated energies. A male integrates the female energies. A female integrates the male energies. Finally, Jesus is describing moving from the "mind" level and mind transmission to the heart or light transmission. Inner mind (or Astral) seeing is known as the single "eye". So when Jesus says "and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye", he is saying that you must let go of the 3rd eye images (they are a construct of the mind). Also, in his final description of "and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness", he is describing the "integration" that happens in true communion (or light transmission). The "kingdom" of God is primordial and beyond consciousness/mind.
-
Yes, I am saying that true Christ based lineages exist. More than that, I am also stating that for those with the capacity, it is possible to receive direct transmission from Jesus (and other divine beings from the lineage).
- 106 replies
-
- Gnosticism
- Gnostics
- (and 8 more)
-
Hi RongzomFan, Gnostic Christianity is not found in a history book. As with Dzogchen/Buddhism, having a teacher makes all the difference. True baptism of the Holy Spirit combines both the Primoridal energy (power) and instance of clarity (peace).
- 106 replies
-
- Gnosticism
- Gnostics
- (and 8 more)
-
As h.uriahr said, it is about knowing. If you "were" a believer, than you never truly believed. The inner path of Christianity (or Christian Gnosticism) is not the same as the outer path of the roman canonized church/doctrine that you keep describing. In gnostic Christianity, Jesus is like Buddha who brought a new path/realization to the world. As with a divine guru/master, one does not "believe", one "surrenders".
- 106 replies
-
- Gnosticism
- Gnostics
- (and 8 more)
-
21) Mary said to Jesus, "Whom are Your disciples like?" He said, "They are like children who have settled in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Let us have back our field.' They (will) undress in their presence in order to let them have back their field and give it back to them. Therefore I say to you, if the owner of a house knows that the thief is coming, he will begin his vigil before he comes and will not let him into his house of his domain to carry away his goods. You, then, be on your guard against the world. Arm yourselves with great strength lest the robbers find a way to come to you, for the difficulty which you expect will (surely) materialize. Let there be among you a man of understanding. When the grain ripened, he came quickly with his sickle in his hand and reaped it. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear." To me this one is about thoughts and the mind. We are all components of oneness and at a human level it can be thought of as a shared universal mind. We all play in the field of universal mind. We realize (and the owners come back) when we undress (let go of) all of the things we wear (issues & fears) in universal mind. The house is your own mind. Being vigil is maintaining presence in the moment. The robbers are random thoughts that pull us in different directions out of the moment. Finally, Jesus is saying that one should find a teacher (man of understanding). When the student is ready (ripened), a true teacher will take them higher. Those who pay attention in the moment, will understand. (Edit - iPad format issue)
-
I think it makes a big difference relative to the clarity of mind. Often apathy is a deep subconscious repression. A broader fear of something beyond conscious notice. There is a big difference when one is engaged, but not attached to the outcome.
-
Yes, sort of the seed and the grown tree are really the same thing (essence).