Wisdom

[Vmarco]

Edited August 28, 2011 by Vmarco

[Aetherous]

I don't understand why the word "wisdom" is used in this sense.

[Vmarco]

Edited August 28, 2011 by Vmarco

[Aetherous]

In what "sense?" Phenomenal (practical, object-ive) wisdom? Or the wisdom (gnowledge, Heart-Mind) beyond phenomena?

 

The latter...simply because the word isn't defined that way. Why did people start using the word incorrectly, to mean something beyond phenomena? Was it a mistranslation into English or something?

 

By the way,...I'm also a despiser of Buddhist beliefs.

 

Excellent.

[Marblehead]

I'm not sure it would be wise of me to enter this discussion.

[Vmarco]

The latter...simply because the word isn't defined that way. Why did people start using the word incorrectly, to mean something beyond phenomena? Was it a mistranslation into English or something?

 

 

Actually, the mistranslation is a sciential minded revisionism,...like David Barton revising US history to suit Christians. It doesn't take much research to uncover that the the first Christian President was the 7th, Andrew Jackson. The first 6 were predominately Deists.

 

The Greeks implied that true wisdom arose from Thymos through gnowledge, not the psyche through knowledge. Gnothe Seauton literally means Gnow Thyself,...not Know Thyself,...but revisionists have been quite successful altering things, and through the ages since Theodosius and Justinian, pretty much brainwashed humanity to be pro-grey goo, and anti-Heart.

 

The correct definition of wisdom was also shared by Egyptians, Mayans, Naga, Buddhists, Bon, etc.

 

In the Sun and Krst philosophies of Egypt, the heart-thymos was revered, whereas the brain-psyche was considered worthless. In the mummification process, the heart was preserved, but the cerebral gray matter was sucked out and discarded. Like Tantra, Buddhism, and the Maya, the Egyptians seem to have been aware that the head was the vessel for the lowest consciousness, but through the heart came the highest consciousness. Today’s object-ive science considers such ideas nonsense, and disregard for the brain misguided. Yet evidence clearly shows that the Egyptians had an intimate knowledge of brain functions, for example that the left cerebral hemisphere controls the right side of the body.

 

Christians love to say that gnosis came from their Christianity,...yet all the evidence is contrary. Christianity anhilated gnosis,...through Paul, whom the Essenes called “the Spouter of Lies”, to the evasions and genocide of the Cathars.

 

Gnosticism, the original form of today's Christianity, arose from a Greco-Egyptian philosophical fusion, as mentioned above. Gnosticism was an important part of the neo-Christian construct. Gnosis was not an outgrowth of neo-Christianity, as revisionists suggest. Today’s Christian persuasions are a product of Gnostic Christianity, not the other way around. We could say that Christianity was built on the DNA of Gnosticism. This neo-Christian fabrication from Gnosis and Krst, from gnowledge and the Anointed One, can also be substantiated through the Book of Enoch, from which over a hundred phrases were introduced into the New Testament. Enoch was written before 170 BCE, and several Aramaic copies were purportedly found among the Dead Sea fragments of the Gnostic gospels from Qumran. These Gnostics, from the time of the Julian clan of emperors, maintained that Christ was not a man in human form, as claimed in the gospels, but an individual goal of an initiate to realize a Christ Consciousness, the Logos. The Logos represents a mystical rebirth without sexual union, an awakening to a reality beyond duality, a palingenesis from the dream of perception. Duality is inherently a sexual reality, in which consciousness is fragmented. Christ Consciousness is an unfragmented consciousness, in which there is neither hope nor fear. The Jesus as defined in the gospels could not have been a Christ.

 

Neither Paul nor his followers could grasp gnosis, that is, to gnow themselves through the heart of essence. Like many today, frozen in their conceptual experiences, Paul needed a more physical, hope-driven, fear-based path. The ignorant respond to hope and fear. Thus, from the expectations infused through the Pauline church, the concept of a personified Christ grew and entered the groupthink of the anti-Gnostic Paulines and those, like the Roman aristocrats, who wished to exploit it.

 

V

[Aetherous]

Checkacheckitout:

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wisdom

[Vmarco]

Checkacheckitout:

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wisdom

 

I'm always amazed with how people think that everything can be found on the internet. Sure,...I concede with Wiki that the English word wisdom come from 9th cenury CE O.E. Does that mean that the meaning of wisdom was not considered by the Greeks 1000 years before that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)

 

Or Egyptian Wisdom 2000 yeas before that:

http://www.maat.sofiatopia.org/saa2.htm

 

Or Naga wisdom 2000 years before the Greeks:

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/naga/id/134572

 

Or Bon Wisdom thousands of years before that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonpa_Shenrab_Miwoche

 

V

[Aetherous]

[Vmarco]

[Aetherous]

Well, I'm not sure about all of that, but yes what you're talking about really does seem to require a new vocabulary.

[fiveelementtao]

[dawei]

As Eckhart Tolle said, "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself" We don't want to negate the false, but simply recognize it.

 

There is the story of the Rabbi who went into meditation for 3 days after the 9/11 bombing. When asked what blessings did he ask for, what spiritual guidance did he request, etc.. he simply said: “I was looking for the terrorist in me”.

 

---

 

Palmirotta, tracing the meaning of Ontosophy, relates: “Thus the term 'Sophos', intended as being aware of a psychic and intentional knowledge-energy in the living being or in the world of existence, was created by the Indo-European history and culture before “Logos” and had a wider and more radically cosmic meaning, but it was Logia, not even Logos, as it’s main etymo…”

 

With the separation of body and soul an unfortunately dichotomy was created breaking the unity that really exists. This perception (or illusion) forces us to think in terms of body and sense perception and phenomena, etc.

 

So I personally find the thread an interesting challenge to our [rationally and historically imposed] understanding of Ontosophy.

 

I am not sure it is what others might call 'spiritual wisdom' but I do see it as trying to break free (or drop the barriers) from just worldly wisdom.

Edited August 28, 2011 by dawei

[fiveelementtao]

ALL WISDOM is BS, because all wisdom must arise from the O.E. knowledge, and all knowledge arises from the grey-goo by way of phenomena, and all phenomena is an illusion.

 

Very interesting

 

V

 

I agree with you that modern English speaking westerners have lost their ancestral, shamanic connection to these words because our ancestors allowed themselves to become hijacked by the over-intellectualized greeks and roman philosophers who paved the way for the imperial christian way of thinking which dominates our modern Western mind. But, I disagree with you that the Old English words themselves are BS. If we study their proto-germanic roots, we will find a very powerful shamanic path through our ancestral tongue...

my .02

[Vmarco]

[Vmarco]

So I personally find the thread an interesting challenge to our [rationally and historically imposed] understanding of Ontosophy.

 

I am not sure it is what others might call 'spiritual wisdom' but I do see it as trying to break free (or drop the barriers) from just worldly wisdom.

 

Although I coined the term ontosophy independently in 1983 and used it for years, it appears to have been first coined by Caramuel Lobkowitz circa 1642. I defined it as this:

 

Ontosophy n. < NL. ontosophia (Caramuel Lobkowitz 1642), pref. onto - being; Gk pp of einai; parousia, to be (in pareina, to be present) from Latin esse; + sophy, Gk wisdom. 1. wisdom of being 2. arising from wisdom (sapientia) verses knowledge (scientia) 3. the sapience to be present in the presence of one's Presence, or Being.

 

But the major mistake, as Scotty pointed out is that Sophy is not wisdom,...and thus sophy is not sapience.

 

 

V

[dawei]

[Aetherous]

Interestingly,...the point you bring up, means that nearly ALL ancient wisdom is not ancient wisdom at all

 

I don't think so, there is a lot of wisdom in many of the world traditions. One example is the teaching of the golden rule.

 

I'm totally with you on the "gnowledge"/Lamp unto thyself idea. It is worth discussing, if possible, since this is the purpose of many traditions.

 

Anyway, "gnowledge" is related to wisdom, in the sense that a person with gnowledge is a lot less likely to be doing unwise things, since they already feel complete in themselves. Wisdom is related to it, because if you're doing unwise things, you're less likely to have the space in your life for gnowledge. You will be too busy dealing with the consequences of "missing the mark".

[Vmarco]

I don't think so, there is a lot of wisdom in many of the world traditions. One example is the teaching of the golden rule.

 

 

The Golden Rule? No way! To have Bernard Gui, Elizabeth Bathory, Marquis de Sade, or George Bush doing unto me, what they would do unto themselves. No grey-goo wisdom in that for me.

 

V

[Aetherous]

The Golden Rule? No way!

 

Yah way!

[dawei]

Yah way!

What is the origin of the golden rule and its meaning?

[dawei]

A thread on non-phenomenal Wisdom ...

 

...uncovering Heart-Mind, is awesome.

This is what I felt was the point of your original thread... maybe not but it does not matter now that I am writing my thought.

 

This is why I jumped in and got interested. I don't care if you close down and stop posting here or just open another thread on this idea. As I previously said, I cannot really handle 1000 word manifesto writing but I truly believe you have much more to share which I would like to read.

[Aetherous]

[dawei]

Well, I'm not really sure of the origin. Found this on wikipedia:

 

 

 

From what I understand, it's somewhat of a worldwide ancient idea...most religions have taught it.

 

The way I view it, everyone enjoys being happy. No one enjoys things that they hate. People may differ in what makes them happy, and the things they hate...so if you're treating others as you'd like to be treated, you're taking their personal likes and dislikes into consideration.

When I hear "Golden Rule"... it is Western and biblical...

so if you're treating others as you'd like to be treated

 

If one has any knowledge of the east, it goes as: The eastern [reverse] rule is: "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."

 

The former is about about action; the latter about no-action.

[Aetherous]

True, there is somewhat of a difference between the two.

 

My personal view is that "do unto others" includes the "do not impose" aspect, so it's both about action and non-action. I kind of prefer it in this positive sense, because it's about progress. Non-action is useful for maintaining the status-quo, but taking action is useful for making progress in society.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Scotty