Transmission in Christian Mysticism

[Bindi]

I think this is an interesting example to explore your second point.

 

Is the source of the initiation beyond this plane or in this plane?

Is the initiation beyond this plane or in this plane?

Is the experience beyond this plane or in this plane?

 

These might help in understanding Jesus's comment: 

 

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

 

This is sometimes seen in brief as the "in, but not of" statement of Jesus... or, "not of, but sent in".

 

All I am exploring here is whether there is any such boundary between this plane and beyond this plane... and that only once we seem to be able to get beyond any boundary will grasp 'in, but not of' and therefore there is passage across the boundary.

 

Steve said something interesting in another thread about his master saying the mind travels faster than the speed of light and therefore, beyond time.    This kind of 'mind-travel' (for lack of a better word) is what I've been trying to understand for some time as that appears to be an experience many people from many walks of life can attest to.

 

Apologies for the long answer - it got long because I find it interesting to explore these issues as well. Dawei, I hope you at least read it in its entirety, since you were the one who introduced these complicated issues

 

The Gospel of John states in verse 17:11 “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world” and then states in your quoted section (verse 17:14) “they are not of the world just as I am not of the world (2x).”

 

So 'in the world but not of the world'.

 

But it’s also true that in John 17 Jesus asks ‘The Father’ that "... they may be one even as We are" (John 17:11) and that "... they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us" (John 17:20).

 

So he is specifically asking the 'Father’ that he grant them the state of Unity with the Father that Jesus already enjoys. In these sentences at least it is not a state that they have yet achieved. It is a request that Jesus makes to The Father, that he wishes the Father to grant.

 

I think there is a contradiction between the statements that they are already not of the world versus Jesus’ request that they will still come to unity, in that 'not of the world' seems to imply unity having already been achieved.

 

Do you agree that there might be a contradiction here?

 

John 17:11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.13 But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves.

 

Your quoted verses - John 17:14-19

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

 

John 17:20 I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

 

Is the source of the initiation beyond this plane or in this plane?

 

Referring to John 17 my answer to your first question would be:

 

The source of the initiation would have to be the Father.

 

Is the Father on this plane or beyond this plane?

 

In John 17:11 Jesus states “I am no longer in the world; … I come to You.”

 

IMO this places the Father not in the world, but somewhere that Jesus is going to, somewher beyond this plane.

 

So I would say the source of this initiation is beyond this plane.

 

 

Is the initiation beyond this plane or in this plane?

 

I wouldn’t like to refer only to John 17 in answering this question as it is complicated by the contradiction I referred to earlier – in one sentence they are already not of this world, but in another Jesus asks that they be brought to a unity which hasn’t yet been achieved with Himself and the Father.

 

I would like to refer instead to The Acts of The Apostles.

 

Early on in Acts and in time after the events referred to in John 17 the apostles are still to be brought into unity with the Father. In Acts 1:5 – 1:8 the risen Jesus states that “Ye shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit not many days hence…[and] Ye shall receive power after the Holy Spirit is come upon you”

 

This initiation was in this plane insofar as the “sound [was] from heaven as from a rushing mighty wind…[which] filled all the house where they were sitting (Acts 2:2).

 

Is the experience beyond this plane or in this plane?

 

The result of this initiation had worldly consequences, in that the apostles could suddenly speak other languages (or be understood as if they were speaking all languages), and developed the ability to heal otherwise incurable conditions  (miraculously) from this time on, such as Peter's healing of the man who had been lame from birth.

 

Incidentally, gaining these specific abilities – speaking in different languages (or being understood as if you were speaking in another’s language), and the ability to heal on such a profound level are not gifts associated with the awakening or ascent of kundalini.

 

All I am exploring here is whether there is any such boundary between this plane and beyond this plane... and that only once we seem to be able to get beyond any boundary will grasp 'in, but not of' and therefore there is passage across the boundary.

 

Staying with John 17, I see the boundary as whether there is unity/oneness or not with the Father.

 

It seems to me that you currently believe there is no boundary.

 

And that the realisation of this dissolves the perceived but unreal boundary.

 

What do you think of my understanding of the boundary as whether there is unity or not with the Father?

 

And can you say that there is true unity with the Father without the descent of the Holy Spirit (and the power granted of the associated gifts)?

 

Was Jesus asking for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles when he was asking the Father that he bring them into Oneness?

Edited November 1, 2015 by Bindi

[Bindi]

Hi Bindi,

 

I think we both are aware of each other's view on kundalini being universal consciousness.

 

Yes we have different opinions as to whether kundalini is an energy located in the root chakra or if it is universal consciousness, but I would agree with you that kundalini might be associated with universal consciousness if you were referring to kundalini that has been fully raised through the crown chakra. I think Kundalini in that state must be synonymous with universal consciousness. Perhaps we're just looking at opposite ends of the kundalini spectrum.

 

 

With regard to duality and none duality.

 

Look at what you wrote and see all the seperation you are attaching to. That you are creating for yourself.

 

Just something to think about.

 

Yes I believe I am separated from 'God', that is the reality I am working within.

 

Maybe the whole question can be seen as a case of the chicken or the egg.

 

Is it the belief that I am separated from God that causes me to be separated from God, or is it that because I in fact realise that I am separated from God that I believe that I am separated? 

 

I personally value the certain knowledge of my separation from God as it is the spur for me to work towards unity. The only thing that would change my mind on this is if I had actually achieved unity, which for me is synonymous with enlightenment, and all that that would entail. Until that day I will remain adamant that I am separated.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Bindi

[3bob]

"The One" is connected to Tao and so are the "Ten Thousand" although for the Ten Thousand the connection feels like it is through "God" only knows how many permutations being in effect, (?) or like echo's from echo's from echo's of Tao reaching through time and space making it very hard to hear, yet the Tao is still always present here and now - it can not be otherwise....

 

Thus there is no complete separation in the totality of creation or manifestation but there are countless permutations in effect that when identified with seem to make it feel like separation is so. 

[Jonesboy]

Edited November 1, 2015 by Jonesboy

[Jeff]

Thought this verse from the gospel of Thomas might be helpful... (Or shed a little light...)

 

50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

Edited November 1, 2015 by Jeff

[Jetsun]

Transmission in Christianity is repeatedly referred to as a descent, a descent of the dove, descent of holy spirit, of love down from above into the heart. There are all sorts of other transmissions of light, of compassion, but the unique characteristic of the Christian transmission is the descent aspect. 

[Bindi]

Thought this verse from the gospel of Thomas might be helpful... (Or shed a little light...)

 

50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

 

 

 

 

Distinguishing 'we as the chosen' is awfully close to self righteous religious aggrandisement, as 'they' are then the opposite of 'the chosen', the unchosen, the one's who didn't make the grade and don't belong to the in group. It seems divisive and self promoting.

 

The evidence I would look for of 'the Father' in people would be unconditional love, unconditional knowledge, miraculous healing - I don't intuitively grasp motion and rest as the definition of 'the Father', it just seems so dry and soulless, maybe it would sing to a physics professor, or a mathematician?

[Bindi]

"The One" is connected to Tao and so are the "Ten Thousand" although for the Ten Thousand the connection feels like it is through "God" only knows how many permutations being in effect, (?) or like echo's from echo's from echo's of Tao reaching through time and space making it very hard to hear, yet the Tao is still always present here and now - it can not be otherwise....

 

Thus there is no complete separation in the totality of creation or manifestation but there are countless permutations in effect that when identified with seem to make it feel like separation is so. 

 

Yes, absolutely. And I do hear those echo's, and they have my full attention

[Jeff]

Distinguishing 'we as the chosen' is awfully close to self righteous religious aggrandisement, as 'they' are then the opposite of 'the chosen', the unchosen, the one's who didn't make the grade and don't belong to the in group. It seems divisive and self promoting.

The evidence I would look for of 'the Father' in people would be unconditional love, unconditional knowledge, miraculous healing - I don't intuitively grasp motion and rest as the definition of 'the Father', it just seems so dry and soulless, maybe it would sing to a physics professor, or a mathematician?

 

The "chosen" are those with "eyes to see" or "ears to hear". We all are children of God, if we only pay attention. When one knows that motion and rest are truly the same, they are residing/receiving...

 

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

‭‭John‬ ‭1:1-13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[dawei]

Apologies for the long answer - it got long because I find it interesting to explore these issues as well. Dawei, I hope you at least read it in its entirety, since you were the one who introduced these complicated issues

 

There was a day when I would of bet the universe that I would never again be sticking my nose in the good book... and here I am

 

I think there is a contradiction between the statements that they are already not of the world versus Jesus’ request that they will still come to unity, in that 'not of the world' seems to imply unity having already been achieved.

 

Do you agree that there might be a contradiction here?

 

I would not call it a contradiction but a man-made distinction of space-time.  They lacked the understanding or perception of their unity and it would take something to pop that bubble to see beyond the local mindset.  

 

Incidentally, gaining these specific abilities – speaking in different languages (or being understood as if you were speaking in another’s language), and the ability to heal on such a profound level are not gifts associated with the awakening or ascent of kundalini.

 

yes... great point

 

Staying with John 17, I see the boundary as whether there is unity/oneness or not with the Father.

 

It seems to me that you currently believe there is no boundary.

 

And that the realisation of this dissolves the perceived but unreal boundary.

 

What do you think of my understanding of the boundary as whether there is unity or not with the Father?

 

It seems to me our only difference is in realization but in fact some may realize it but it still doesn't produce the effect of unity.

 

 

And can you say that there is true unity with the Father without the descent of the Holy Spirit (and the power granted of the associated gifts)?

 

I'm not sure the question can be really asked or answered as there is no HS without the Father; so if there is one (father)  then there naturally comes the other (HS).      The associated gifts is an interesting issue.

 

 Was Jesus asking for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles when he was asking the Father that he bring them into Oneness?

 

I see it as he was asking for their eyes to be opened and he was asking the father to grant such sight.   I can only equate this to something like light practice whereby one can't perceive it yet but if more light is allowed to shine through (something or someone makes a bigger hole than our perception creates) then we can be not just spiritual united but also can physically experience it.

 

I think our human condition is such that we rely on our senses so much in 'this world' that we have lost our unity-sensitivity to the source.   All traditions may be just trying to get our flesh and blood to recognize what it really it... unity with the formless.

[3bob]

Some highly recognized folks have tried to make correlations between the Christian Bible and other teachings - some of it more or works and the rest is often like beating your head against the wall - I suggest going whole hog one way or another since the correlation game and its cross references have limits..... in other words the Christian Bible teachings are dualistic so you will be hard pressed to correlate non-duality out of it unless one adds some new age spices or more or less borrows and pastes on non-Bible teachings from other 'eastern" leaning interpretations.

[Bindi]

Transmission in Christianity is repeatedly referred to as a descent, a descent of the dove, descent of holy spirit, of love down from above into the heart. There are all sorts of other transmissions of light, of compassion, but the unique characteristic of the Christian transmission is the descent aspect. 

And kundalini (though it is not a transmission) is repeatedly referred to as an ascent. I wonder if these two, descent of the Holy Spirit and ascent of kundalini actually have an ultimately necessary relationship in us beyond any religion, ie. to be utterly complete human beings are they both necessarytogether.

 

I didn't know that the Holy Spirit descends to the heart, not that I've ever really explored the topic.

[Bindi]

Thought this verse from the gospel of Thomas might be helpful... (Or shed a little light...)

 

50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

 

Appeared in whose image? What does 'appeared in their image' mean?

 

The "chosen" are those with "eyes to see" or "ears to hear".

 

Is there scriptural reference to the chosen ones being those with eyes to see or ears to hear? In this passage the chosen ones seem more likely to be the children of the light, who came from the light.

 

 We all are children of God, if we only pay attention.

 

Yes we are all children of God, whether we are paying attention or not (with a nod to Bob).

 

When one knows that motion and rest are truly the same, they are residing/receiving...

 

Okay, a little exploration of motion and rest.

 

With regard to motion, we identify two states : "A body being at rest or in motion".

The idea of Rest and Motion

When we are standing at a place we say that •Rest

A person is at rest if the distance between that person and ourself is constant.

•Motion

A person is in motion if the distance between that person and ourself is varying.

We say that person is moving away from us if the distance between the person and us is increasing and we say that the person is moving towards us if the distance between the person and us is decreasing.

 

 

"Rest and Motion" are relative and not absolute.

 

Absolute = Something that does not depends on anything else.

Relative = Something that is dependent on other things.

 

Whenever we express the state of a body to be at rest or in motion, we are expressing the state with respect to (in relation to) some other body which we identify as the frame of reference.

 

Two Persons in a Train

Consider two persons seated in a moving train. For each of them the other is at rest while the train itself is in motion. Therefore, we may say that "A person seated in a moving train is at rest".

 

 

two persons in a train are at rest with respect to each other two persons in a train are in motion with respect to a person on the ground

 

 

But would this statement be the same when they are viewed by a person on the ground. A person on the ground sees the train along with all the passengers and objects in it to be in motion. For him the two persons are in motion. Therefore, we need to modify this statement as "A person seated in a moving train is at rest in relation to any other person (body) in the same train but is in motion in relation to any other person (body) outside the train.

 

A Person on the platform

A person on the platform is at rest with reference to any other person on the platform and is in motion with reference to a person viewing him from a moving train.

 

Motion

Based on the above explanation, motion can be said to be a change in the position of a body with respect to time, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference.

 http://www.schoolingkids.com/india-ap-inter/physics-kinematics/study-notes/rest-motion-kinds-translatory-rotatory-oscillatory-periodic-random.php

 

To work as an analogy surely it has to make sense on this level first. And I get the train example, my perception of motion and rest is relative. And maybe someone with physics knowledge could clarify for me if and how this means that motion and rest are actually the same? But regardless of this, what does motion and rest have to do with residing and receiving?

 

[3bob]

"transmission" is not rocket science it is a one to one, deeply intimate and energized telepathic linkage that shares and or transmits reams of knowledge and intense feelings super quickly without any interference or mistaken meaning.

[Bindi]

There was a day when I would of bet the universe that I would never again be sticking my nose in the good book... and here I am

 

Life is long

 

 

I would not call it a contradiction but a man-made distinction of space-time.  They lacked the understanding or perception of their unity and it would take something to pop that bubble to see beyond the local mindset.  

 

 

So are you saying we are all 'not of this world' whether we realise it or not? And that we are all one with the Father whether we realise it or not. Along the lines of Bob's "countless permutations in effect that when identified with seem to make it feel like separation is so."

 

In John 17 Jesus asks the Father that the apostles may be one with Himself and the Father. So according to your logic the Father would just have to grant them that understanding.  Yes, possibly, but again following this logic, he granted them understanding of unity in the descent of the Holy Spirit, but there were associated gifts, much as siddhis are associated with enlightenment. So to claim unity or enlightenment without the associated gifts genuinely strikes me as hollow words.

 

 

It seems to me our only difference is in realization but in fact some may realize it but it still doesn't produce the effect of unity.

 

 

What effects of unity would satisfy your criteria? Would a single experience of unity be enough to qualify someone as having realised unity? Or would the experience of unity have to be permanent? Is there any requirement to have associated gifts? Where do you set the bar?

 

I have had 2 days in my life where I have experienced a profound level of unity, but for me visiting wasn't enough. Am I just a harder judge than you?

 

 

I see it as he was asking for their eyes to be opened and he was asking the father to grant such sight.   I can only equate this to something like light practice whereby one can't perceive it yet but if more light is allowed to shine through (something or someone makes a bigger hole than our perception creates) then we can be not just spiritual united but also can physically experience it.

 

I think our human condition is such that we rely on our senses so much in 'this world' that we have lost our unity-sensitivity to the source.   All traditions may be just trying to get our flesh and blood to recognize what it really it... unity with the formless.

 

I agree with this, I think our physical senses do blind us to the source. And yes most traditions would be just trying to get us to recognise our unity with the source.

 

But different traditions try to get us to recognise that unity in different ways, and this is what can cause disagreements. 

 

You do light practice (though if someone could tell me why it's called light practice when no one seems to be able to actually see light I'd be much obliged). I also have a solution - develop extra sensory perception that is able to perceive that level.

 

Vive La Différence?

[Jeff]

"transmission" is not rocket science it is a one to one, deeply intimate and energized telepathic linkage that shares and or transmits reams of knowledge and intense feelings super quickly without any interference or mistaken meaning.

 

What you are describing is the "lower" form mind based transmission as discussed in the OP.

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/31514-transmission-in-christian-mysticism/

 

[Jeff]

 

Appeared in whose image? What does 'appeared in their image' mean?

 

Is there scriptural reference to the chosen ones being those with eyes to see or ears to hear? In this passage the chosen ones seem more likely to be the children of the light, who came from the light.

...

 

 

 

There are many such references in the canonical bible. Here is one for you to point...

 

“And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭13:10-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

Being "chosen" is about being ready to "receive". One who has an open heart that is not "waxed gross"...

[Jonesboy]

Hi Bindi,

 

With regard to motion and rest. Would not that be the same as form and void?

 

Another example is:

 

91. They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you." He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment."

 

This also comes to mind with the present discussion. From GOT:

 

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) 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 (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

Edited November 2, 2015 by Jonesboy

[Bindi]

Hi Bindi,

 

With regard to motion and rest. Would not that be the same as form and void?

 

 

 Jeff says that motion and rest have to do with residing and receiving. Now you say motion and rest are the same as form and void. Just because they are opposite pairs (though Jeff's aren't really opposites, and i suspect he really means transmission/receiving) doesn't actually make them synonymous. Your examples just seem to be plucked out of thin air, they don't make sense to me, and i'm struggling enough already with seeing the spiritual relevance of motion and rest in the first place. 

 

Could someone explain the spiritual relevance of motion and rest by actually referring to the words 'motion' and 'rest'?

 

 

 

 

Another example is:

 

91. They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you." He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment."

 

Another example of what, motion and rest? How does this verse relate to motion and rest, or form and void?

 

Why bold present moment? Is this in some way particularly relevant to motion and rest and form and void?

 

 

This also comes to mind with the present discussion. From GOT:

 

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) 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 (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

 

So are you saying that  within and outside are synonymous with motion and rest? I think even a physics professor would be getting a bit bogged down with all these apparently synonymous pairs of opposites. Motion/rest, residing/receiving, form/void, within/outside...

 

 

 

 

 

[Bindi]

 Appeared in whose image? What does 'appeared in their image' mean?

 

I'd still like this to be clarified, who is being referred to here?

 

There are many such references in the canonical bible. Here is one for you to point... “And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭13:10-17‬ ‭KJV‬‬ Being "chosen" is about being ready to "receive". One who has an open heart that is not "waxed gross"...

 

This verse does say that they are 'blessed' because they have eyes to see and ears to hear, it doesn't specify that they are 'chosen' which is what i asked for from scriptural references. 

 

You say being chosen is about being ready to receive, my question is being ready to receive what exactly?

[Jeff]

 

I'd still like this to be clarified, who is being referred to here?

 

 

This verse does say that they are 'blessed' because they have eyes to see and ears to hear, it doesn't specify that they are 'chosen' which is what i asked for from scriptural references. 

 

You say being chosen is about being ready to receive, my question is being ready to receive what exactly?

 

The image of Christ. The bible also states the "heavenly man".  The receiving is the Holy Spirit (or light of God).  Hear is another gospel quote for you that might help with understanding the point...

 

Romans 8:6-17

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 

The "carnal mind" is often what I call "local mind".  One simply lets go of the "fear" and the obstructions that create the suffering/bondage and is filled (receives) the Holy Spirit (light of God) and then is capable of realizing that one truly always was a "son of God" (Christ).

[Jonesboy]

 

 Jeff says that motion and rest have to do with residing and receiving. Now you say motion and rest are the same as form and void. Just because they are opposite pairs (though Jeff's aren't really opposites, and i suspect he really means transmission/receiving) doesn't actually make them synonymous. Your examples just seem to be plucked out of thin air, they don't make sense to me, and i'm struggling enough already with seeing the spiritual relevance of motion and rest in the first place. 

 

Could someone explain the spiritual relevance of motion and rest by actually referring to the words 'motion' and 'rest'?

 

 

Another example of what, motion and rest? How does this verse relate to motion and rest, or form and void?

 

Why bold present moment? Is this in some way particularly relevant to motion and rest and form and void?

 

 

So are you saying that  within and outside are synonymous with motion and rest? I think even a physics professor would be getting a bit bogged down with all these apparently synonymous pairs of opposites. Motion/rest, residing/receiving, form/void, within/outside...

 

Hi Bindi,

 

I will let Jeff speak for himself. As for me, motion and rest sounds exactly like the Heart Sutra.

 

I often think of silence/rest,void as a calm body of water. I think of form/motion/energy as the ripples on the pond.

 

The reason i bolded Present Moment is because I wanted to bring your attention to the none dualistic nature of what he was saying. Here Jesus is referring to ones Natural State.

 

 

So are you saying that  within and outside are synonymous with motion and rest? I think even a physics professor would be getting a bit bogged down with all these apparently synonymous pairs of opposites. Motion/rest, residing/receiving, form/void, within/outside...

 

Bindi you are making this very difficult.

 

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) 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 (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father.

 

If people are telling you the Fathers kingdom is outside of you. In some place in the sky or in some far off plane or dimension you won't find it. You will find rocks and birds and fish. The kingdom is within and without. It is all things.

 

As in I am That.

 

Until then..

 

But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

Edited November 2, 2015 by Jonesboy

[dawei]

 So are you saying we are all 'not of this world' whether we realise it or not? And that we are all one with the Father whether we realise it or not. Along the lines of Bob's "countless permutations in effect that when identified with seem to make it feel like separation is so."

 

Yes, along those lines.  There is underlying unity although our experiences tend to interpret it as separation.

 

 In John 17 Jesus asks the Father that the apostles may be one with Himself and the Father. So according to your logic the Father would just have to grant them that understanding.  Yes, possibly, but again following this logic, he granted them understanding of unity in the descent of the Holy Spirit, but there were associated gifts, much as siddhis are associated with enlightenment. So to claim unity or enlightenment without the associated gifts genuinely strikes me as hollow words.

 

I think there are levels to perceiving the unity and the final stage may be something like complete identification with the source.   Whatever gifts the apostles received at that time was what was received.   I am not sure I would use that to compare what everyone after them would receive.

 

What effects of unity would satisfy your criteria? Would a single experience of unity be enough to qualify someone as having realised unity? Or would the experience of unity have to be permanent? Is there any requirement to have associated gifts? Where do you set the bar?

 

I have had 2 days in my life where I have experienced a profound level of unity, but for me visiting wasn't enough. Am I just a harder judge than you?

 

For me, because there is underlying unity the issue is not about unity.   There is so much stuff in life which simply creates a separation effect and it is the lessening of these which have produce some effect of perceiving and apprehending unity.

 

For some, their experience of it is simply knowing it.    The gift thing is to me an individual response (receiving) and different people have have different gifts arise or not.  I don't think gifts is a requirement.

 

I agree with this, I think our physical senses do blind us to the source. And yes most traditions would be just trying to get us to recognise our unity with the source.

 

But different traditions try to get us to recognise that unity in different ways, and this is what can cause disagreements. 

 

True but I think we would want different methods instead of just one. 

 

 You do light practice (though if someone could tell me why it's called light practice when no one seems to be able to actually see light I'd be much obliged). I also have a solution - develop extra sensory perception that is able to perceive that level.

 

Do folks who do Qigong actually see Qi ?

 

Someone might rather call it Shengong (Shen=spirit) but then do they need to see Spirits to use that label?

 

Light is just a higher form of energy than say Qi... so it is just another name to distinguish it.

 

I could just as well say I do energy practices but that is quite broad and vague.

[Bindi]

Yes, along those lines.  There is underlying unity although our experiences tend to interpret it as separation.

 

Everyone is in but not of this world, even if they don't realise it. Ok, I can go along with that. 

 

 

I think there are levels to perceiving the unity and the final stage may be something like complete identification with the source.   Whatever gifts the apostles received at that time was what was received.   I am not sure I would use that to compare what everyone after them would receive.For me, because there is underlying unity the issue is not about unity. There is so much stuff in life which simply creates a separation effect and it is the lessening of these which have produce some effect of perceiving and apprehending unity.

 

For some, their experience of it is simply knowing it. The gift thing is to me an individual response (receiving) and different people have have different gifts arise or not. I don't think gifts is a requirement.

 

It was claimed in the OP that light transmission is the Holy Spirit (kundalini), and it is this claim that I am asking proof for.

 

This proof must relate in some fashion to the biblical understanding of the Holy Spirit since the biblical Holy Spirit has been specifically referred to.

 

 According to the bible the Holy Spirit is physically visible or audible to onlookers when it appears, and rests upon them for some time. That would be one proof, that an independent observer has either seen or heard the Holy Spirit descending on someone during a light transmission. 

 

Other proofs would be gifts directly associated with the Holy Spirit in the Bible, specifically the gifts of healing and working miracles, gifts of foretelling things to come, discerning of spirits, speaking with diverse kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues.

 

According to the bible, there are different kinds of gifts but the same Spirit distributes them (1 Corinthians 12:4) according to the will of God or the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:11), but you claim that the Holy Spirit has been transmitted despite lack of verified observation and despite the lack of any kinds of gifts being received at all.  

 

So what is left of the Holy Spirit in light transmission, when there is no evidence for it at all? 

 

Your only evidence is an experience of Unity. Fair enough you experience this, I am not questioning that, but the experience of Unity per se does not constitute evidence of the Holy Spirit - in fact the experience of unity is not specifically associated with the Holy Spirit in the bible. 

 

 

Do folks who do Qigong actually see Qi ?

 

Someone might rather call it Shengong (Shen=spirit) but then do they need to see Spirits to use that label?

 

Light is just a higher form of energy than say Qi... so it is just another name to distinguish it.

 

I could just as well say I do energy practices but that is quite broad and vague.

 

There is no expectation for people to see Qi when doing Qigong as Qi cannot be seen directly by the human eye, though I gather people often feel Qi. But if Holy Spirit/kundalini transmission is specifically referred to as light transmission, then I would expect light to be visible. It is a simple conclusion.

 

What do you mean when you say that light is just a higher form of Qi? 

 

According to Dr. Sadao Hayano in his paper Measuring Qi Energy:

 

‘Qi wave or Qi light’ is the electromagnetic wave ( or light ) having a wave length λ = 10-5 m. 

 

Qi energy is known to have the frequency fq = 3 x 1014 cycles per sec. and a wave length λ = 10-5m, which

define energy Eq = 1.99 x 10-19 Joules/photon for the Qi wave. We note that the Qi wave is in the

spectral region of far infra - red light and can not be directly seen with the human eye.  

http://www.equilibrium-e3.com/images/PDF/Measuring Qi Energy.pdf

 

What region of the light spectrum are you referring to which is 'higher' than infra-red light?

[Bud Jetsun]

 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ” 

 

 

This translation's replacement of "Logos" with "Word" has given rise to a mass scale misunderstanding. 

 

We ended up at this translation from unrealized beings performing translations (the same reason often amidst some quote of beautiful enlightened wisdom incorporates some translators obvious misperception of the nature of reality.)

 

The common english translation:

 

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

 

Came from the already half mixed up version in Latin:

 

In principio erat Verbum, 

et Verbum erat apud Deum,

et Deus erat Verbum.

Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.

 

 

Which came from this earlier version:

 

In principio erat Verbum Logos, 

et Verbum erat apud Deum,

et Deus erat Verbum Logos.

Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.

 

Which came from "Logos" meaning the "Way of Nature", or "Divine Law" or "Natural Law" or "Way of Universe". 

 

Greek politicians well prior to Christ were hard at work leveraging ways to pervert the term "Logos" into meaning man's delusions of domain over the consciousness of others he calls "laws".  As man's constructed laws don't exist beyond idle words and the folks who choose belief in them, Logo's by association with man's laws developed the vernacular mass misunderstanding of meaning "word" when used to describe "Logos".  

 

Strong motivation existed to not have a proletariat which recognizes itself and all things as God equally, as non-dual awareness encourages liberated fearless populations of free thinking beings (which are incompatible with government and indoctrination based religion). 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud