World Peace is near (St. Malachi Prophecy)

[Vmarco]

Do you have a source or factual proof anywhere that this is so?

 

Surrender and letting go in that Tradition, means surrender and letting go of all things, mind, ego, beliefs, the body, Absolutely everything is let go of and Surrendered

 

Sure I have proof,...in that except for Teresa of Avila, all continued proselytizing their Tradition. In other words, they may have let go of some things, like ice cream, sex, and hot dogs,...but they did not let go of their beliefs.

 

Enlightenment is impossible through beliefs.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Recognize that eveything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth."

[ॐDominicusॐ]

Sure I have proof,...in that except for Teresa of Avila, all continued proselytizing their Tradition.

well it seems we have a problem because I have proof that counters what your saying. A large number of Enlightened Saints that have existed within the Esoteric Christian Traditions, that have laid out reality, surrender, letting go, and experieince over beliefs, exactly that way you have laid it out.

 

In other words, they may have let go of some things, like ice cream, sex, and hot dogs,...but they did not let go of their beliefs.

Unless you have some sort of magical machine or transcendent method to scan the inner thoughts and inner states of people of the past, and current Monks, then there is no possible way for you to now whether or not someone has let go of their beliefs.

 

I can provide you with hundreds of Books from the Esoteric Christian Traditions, where they had the foresight and knowledge to know that belief is not experience. Whereas you seem to have chosen to believe, and repeat it as if it is concrete evidence, that no Christian (except of Teresa of Avila) has ever tasted the Absolute Truth because they are all stuck beliefs.

 

You have quite a large amount of reading to do, because how you have laid out a lot of things is not at all what you have believed yourself these things to be. We all agree that what we believe to be true, is not the same as the Truth.

Enlightenment is impossible through beliefs.

Who ever said that Christian Mystics reach Enlightenment through beliefs?

 

Lao Tzu said, "Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth."

Nothing wrong with that. But that's just One method to realize Enlightenment.

 

Enlightenment doesn't start and end with Lao Tzu

[shanlung]

I wonder if the 209 Cardinals in the coming Conclave be able to bring their laptops or Iphones in with them to google away at the background of those that they want to vote for, if Peter or Rome exist in their genealogy, on in their order. Or perhaps they are doing that now as we talk about it.

 

This is fascinating.

 

After the fiasco of Mayan end of the Universe, we have other things to look towards.

 

Idiotic Taoist

Edited February 14, 2013 by shanlung

[Vmarco]

well it seems we have a problem because I have proof that counters what your saying. A large number of Enlightened Saints that have existed within the Esoteric Christian Traditions, that have laid out reality, surrender, letting go, and experieince over beliefs, exactly that way you have laid it out.

 

Unless you have some sort of magical machine or transcendent method to scan the inner thoughts and inner states of people of the past, and current Monks, then there is no possible way for you to now whether or not someone has let go of their beliefs.

 

Again,..it's totally simple,...know god, no peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

 

Anyone who claims enlightenment, and spouts off about a god, is not enlightened. Undivided Light is proof that no god exists.

 

I'm not advocating atheism, which is a belief that no god exists,...basically there is very little difference between an atheist and a theists,...the beliefs of both are barriers to enlightenment.

 

Enlightenment = Unconditional. Belief = condition. Conditions cannot enter the Unconditional.

 

God defined (websters unabridged):

1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).

2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).

3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).

4. An image of supernatural being; an idol (conditions).

5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (condition).

A very handsome man (condition).

A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

 

Buddha said, "the Tathagata does not come and go." (Unconditional)

Lao Tzu said, "the Tao doesn't come and go." (Unconditional)

Edited February 14, 2013 by Vmarco

[Marblehead]

Again,..it's totally simple,...know god, no peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

Even though Vmarco is trying, I think that he still hasn't said this often enough so I thought I would help out by repeating it.

[Edward M]

Being is not conditioned.. if something just exists, it just is, then it is being, it be... it does not become! being and becoming are different, all that is coming into being and going out of being, becoming... That which always is, is being..and that being just is..nothing else, is just being...

 

Peace

[Marblehead]

Being is not conditioned.. if something just exists, it just is, then it is being, it be... it does not become! being and becoming are different, all that is coming into being and going out of being, becoming... That which always is, is being..and that being just is..nothing else, is just being...

 

Peace

Yeah, we really have only one choice other than being. I don't like the thought of that very much at all.

 

I agree, becoming is a different story.

[Vmarco]

Even though Vmarco is trying, I think that he still hasn't said this often enough so I thought I would help out by repeating it.

 

LOL

 

"truth is infinitely simple, delusion is infinitely complex" Jed McKenna

[Vmarco]

Being is not conditioned.. if something just exists, it just is, then it is being, it be... it does not become! being and becoming are different, all that is coming into being and going out of being, becoming... That which always is, is being..and that being just is..nothing else, is just being...

 

Peace

 

Being,...is a condition. Being is not Suchness, nor the way things are. Being arises from a dream. Of course, those enamoured by the dream, think (condition within sentient consciousness) that the dream is real. Neither Buddha nor Lao Tzu said the dream was real.

[Vmarco]

Yeah, we really have only one choice other than being. I don't like the thought of that very much at all.

 

I agree, becoming is a different story.

 

Yeap,...ego is quite entrenched in preserving its beliefs. The choice other than "being" is to Wake Up,...which would kill ego's perception of itself. But what an adventure!

[Marblehead]

Yeap,...ego is quite entrenched in preserving its beliefs. The choice other than "being" is to Wake Up,...which would kill ego's perception of itself. But what an adventure!

You and I still have a difference in understanding of ego and its role in our life. But that's okay. As long as we at least lessen our ego we are walking in the right direction.

[Edward M]

Vmarco, you don't know what i mean by 'being' so please don't make conditioned assumptions about it

 

Peace

[Vmarco]

You and I still have a difference in understanding of ego and its role in our life. But that's okay. As long as we at least lessen our ego we are walking in the right direction.

 

My non-ego I, the Self beyond sentience, is fully uninterested in ego,...ego is only a problem for those soley attached to their sentience. To be only aware of sensory consciousness (seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, thinking), one cannot understand the world that surrounds them,...only the world that surrounded them.

 

Way too much emphesis is put on ego. Just let it go. It's merely a by-product of the dream state. It cannot be killed,...because it doesn't really exist.

[Marblehead]

Way too much emphesis is put on ego. Just let it go.

Okay.

[Vmarco]

Vmarco, you don't know what i mean by 'being' so please don't make conditioned assumptions about it

 

Peace

 

Words are funny things. Most make up their own meanings to attach to words,...I generally use a dictionary,...but at times, the majority seems to contradict those definitions. To me, being means to exist, existence. Exist means to stand alone. As no phemomena stands alone, I assume that no phenomena exists or has being. And, as there are no conditions in the Unconditional, there is no being in the Unconditional either. To me, the term human beings describes a dream state, where similiar drempt objects delusionally interact with each other,...sort of playing a game of separation, although such separation never occurred.

 

But yes,...I do not understand how you see the term being,...nor why you believe it is not a condition.

[Edward M]

Forgive me for not remembering the names of the experiments or the theories, but there was an experiment that showed awareness of an event altered the event. There was also a finding that showed if something is aware, then it is only aware when it in turn has something aware of it.

 

I think what buddha found was only naked awareness of a kind not meant by the first experiment i mentioned can reveal the truth of things...

 

The second finding shows that there is a universal awareness... if there was only one human alive with no animals alive, this law still applies, so who/what is aware of this one and only human?

 

Science has the use of tools that buddha didn't have access to at that time...

 

i'll try to find the source of what i said, it's been some time since i came across it!

ps, i think we are in a bit of a if a tree falls is there a noise if no one is there to witness it situation!

Peace

[Edward M]

Haha can see the holes in what i said already lol :) peace

[Edward M]

forget everything i said.... it's not relevant lol.. didn't think it through at all!!! peace

[Marblehead]

Haha can see the holes in what i said already lol :) peace

That's great!!! Beautiful thing about these forums - we have to put out thoughts into words and we and all others see what we have thought. Even I feel funny sometimes when I post something and then look back at it.

.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

world peace isnt near enough Malachi!

[ॐDominicusॐ]

Anyone who claims enlightenment, and spouts off about a god, is not enlightened. Undivided Light is proof that no god exists.

its all the same thing, just different words are used: Tao, Ultimate, Supreme, Unconditioned, God, etc

 

I'm not advocating atheism, which is a belief that no god exists,...basically there is very little difference between an atheist and a theists,...the beliefs of both are barriers to enlightenment.

Actually, an Atheist chooses not to believe in any Gods. They're not saying, "We don't believe God exists." They're saying "we choose not to believe in anything until there is some substantial scientific proof"

 

Enlightenment = Unconditional. Belief = condition. Conditions cannot enter the Unconditional.

You can repeat this a trillion times, but at the end of the day, Esoteric Mystical Experiential Christianity, which today is still alive and well, also speaks of this "Union/Merged Experience" as the unconditioned.

 

God defined (websters unabridged):

1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).

2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).

3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).

4. An image of supernatural being; an idol (conditions).

5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (condition).

A very handsome man (condition).

A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).

Well then that's a good thing that The Esoteric Mystical Experiential Christianity doesn't go by Webster.

 

Surprisingly they are saying the same thing. Unconditioned, Inherently accessible within, yet also without.

 

If there is any Dualistic approach to God, it is mostly OT based. NT instead provides a systematic method to also directly experience the Unconditioned.

 

Buddha said, "the Tathagata does not come and go." (Unconditional)

Lao Tzu said, "the Tao doesn't come and go." (Unconditional)

Same thing the Christian Mystics say.

 

You seem to be looking for various excuses, but your using an entire separate Branch of Westernized Dogmatic Fundamentalism, Catholicism, or OT speak (which then you are bringing Judaism into the mix)

 

Once Jesus shows up into the picture, he changes everything and simplifies it, making "Going within to find the Kingdom of God" more easily accessible, since this particular path has a lot of Mystical Grace included.

 

When we look at the Monks, hermits, Mystics of the tradition, who merged into Union with God, they talk about all the same phenomenon as Taoists, Buddhists, Kashmir Shaivism, Sufism, and so on.

 

Your looking at the Exoteric outer shell, and basing everything off of that. While the inner esoteric core, comes to the same conclusion as Lao Tsu did.

[RongzomFan]

This is esoteric Christianity:

 

http://www.esotericarchives.com/

[eye_of_the_storm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9uaHTPsP9s

^ Interview was mid 2012. //

Has focus on a 2012 timeline...

Interesting discussion anyhow.

Edited February 14, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Vmarco]

forget everything i said.... it's not relevant lol.. didn't think it through at all!!! peace

 

What Buddha found, is that dukkha is a consequence of the desire for things to be other than then are,...the 6 senses cannot see things as they are,...and thus most people think the dream is real.

 

To understand things as they really are, one must use a consciousness beyond sentient awareness.

[Vmarco]

its all the same thing, just different words are used: Tao, Ultimate, Supreme, Unconditioned, God, etc

 

Actually, an Atheist chooses not to believe in any Gods. They're not saying, "We don't believe God exists." They're saying "we choose not to believe in anything until there is some substantial scientific proof"

 

You can repeat this a trillion times, but at the end of the day, Esoteric Mystical Experiential Christianity, which today is still alive and well, also speaks of this "Union/Merged Experience" as the unconditioned.

 

Well then that's a good thing that The Esoteric Mystical Experiential Christianity doesn't go by Webster.

 

Surprisingly they are saying the same thing. Unconditioned, Inherently accessible within, yet also without.

 

If there is any Dualistic approach to God, it is mostly OT based. NT instead provides a systematic method to also directly experience the Unconditioned.

 

Same thing the Christian Mystics say.

 

You seem to be looking for various excuses, but your using an entire separate Branch of Westernized Dogmatic Fundamentalism, Catholicism, or OT speak (which then you are bringing Judaism into the mix)

 

Once Jesus shows up into the picture, he changes everything and simplifies it, making "Going within to find the Kingdom of God" more easily accessible, since this particular path has a lot of Mystical Grace included.

 

When we look at the Monks, hermits, Mystics of the tradition, who merged into Union with God, they talk about all the same phenomenon as Taoists, Buddhists, Kashmir Shaivism, Sufism, and so on.

 

Your looking at the Exoteric outer shell, and basing everything off of that. While the inner esoteric core, comes to the same conclusion as Lao Tsu did.

 

Lots of disagreement here.

 

The Tao has no relationship with god. The Tao Is,...god is not.

 

Sure,...atheists choose not to believe in any gods,...but it is a belief in no god, or a belief in an empirical world, etc., as to why they do not believe in any gods. The Buddhas are simply aware that there is no gods. No need for belief or non-belief. Undivided Light is proof that no gods exist.

 

Self proclaimed Esoteric Mystical Experiential Christians can speak of "Union/Merged Experience" as the unconditioned all they wish,...but it will never make it so. There is no Unconditional "Union/Merged Experience." Union/Merged Experience is always part of delusional reality,...that can only be experience through the conditions of Union/Merged Experience. Whole is beyond the sum of opposites,...there is no union or merger with conditions. Before entering the Unconditional, all conditions must cancel each other out.

 

As a former Religious Studies scholar, whom members of the Westar Institute said, not 20 people in the world understood Early Christianity as well,..I can assure you, that there is nothing in the NT that "points to a direct experience of the Unconditional."

 

Nearly everything in the NT is designed, albeit unconsciously, supports the continued inferiority of humanity. For example,

Christians say, "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is idealized by Christians, it isn't Unconditional Love, but nothing more than the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their religions brewed beliefs.

 

Christians are huge advocates of hope,...but what is hope? Is there a more dishonest, perniciousness word than hope? hope n. from ME. hopa, an expectation. 1. expectation of something desired; anticipation of some future event. 2. a guess or belief. 3. that which gives hope; a substance or object hoped for; an expected payoff.

 

No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition, a belief, and attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess.

 

　

How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Mind or Open-Heart ? The belief of hope is a barrier that obscures the present. The Heart of our Essence would not express lack or need, nor see positive or negative as good or evil, beauty or blight.

 

If our attention is on seeking hope, how are we to ever experience the immediacy required to be in the Present? If we seek hope, our overall frequency pattern projects a self-manifested incompleteness, and thus can only attract to itself, that incompleteness. It is no different than a mirror in ones bathroom; if you look into the mirror with a frown, it will not reflect back a smile. In other words, our hope will never be realized as long as we hope; just like joy is never actualized if we are looking for it.

Hope is a condition,…whereas, if Love is Unconditional, how can hope ever enter Love,…a condition cannot enter the Unconditional. Thus, if there is one action in the world which could precipitate a tremendum of Collective metanoic proportions, it would be the deletion of the word hope from our vocabulary.

 

No enlightened being would discuss hope as something to be embraced. Tilopa, a great enlightened being from the 12th century said,...the highest goal is being devoid of hope and fear.