dawei Posted July 28, 2015 I don’t recall coming across the concept of moving beyond time in spiritual literature before (which isn't to say it isn't there), but perhaps because this thought had been put in my mind after reading your post, I did see a reference to beyond time and space while reading about Taoist dream practice: To be honest, I also have not seen this among daoist literature... but I recently came across "The Tibetan Yogas Of Dream And Sleep"... I can't recommend it as I have not read it yet but I can at least mention it in case you want to find it. You talk about entering ‘the kingdom’ by “break[ing] outside of the last barrier of 'time'”, I wonder if you could expound on this idea a bit further, for me right now the idea is a bit like falling down the rabbit hole, I don't even know the right question to ask...yet I don't think one "enters the kingdom" , except in their own interpretation of events (time). The last barrier is a state but IMO, we can 'borrow' from states even though we're not in that state... because the most important aspect is: Nothing Separates Us. As I explore this, at times I am floating above and getting detached from it. As I get into universal consciousness, I travel past time and space, as it collapses (no separation). Sometimes it collapses on 'me'. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bindi Posted August 1, 2015 The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding’. (Mark 4:11-12) This suggests that there is secret Christian knowledge equated with 'the kingdom of God', but this secret knowledge would have to accord on some level with the parables in which this knowledge was hidden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) even if a modern day science related masterpiece was written to try to explain and point to ultimate Truth by using the most exacting words or text possible (without metaphor or allegory) such would still effectively be some unreachable, non-understandable thing to most or many (not unlike the T.T.C. is to many of us westerners) unless the one reading and or hearing could really see and hear... thus the parables in the Bible don't and cant' really hide any secrets or secret knowledge, since it's all in plain sight but our perception is veiled. Edited August 1, 2015 by 3bob 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted August 1, 2015 even if a modern day science related masterpiece was written to try to explain and point to ultimate Truth by using the most exacting words or text possible (without metaphor or allegory) such would still effectively be some unreachable, non-understandable thing to most or many (not unlike the T.T.C. is to many of us westerners) unless the one reading and or hearing could really see and hear... thus the parables in the Bible don't and cant' really hide any secrets or secret knowledge, since it's all in plain sight but our perception is veiled. Not only that, but words transform over time. For instance 'boy' was once an abusive term which is now considered acceptable for a male child. Thinking about the word changes over the centuries in Hebrew, then Latin, then English-Some of it I suspect even older than 2000 years-makes the head spin. Take Shakespeare-how many know what a bodkin is today ? I think these ancient texts are all but useless as philosophic entities unless they can be read in their original firm and in context. Straight logic carries through as does mathematical and scientific theory, but much of the rest was cobbled together to suit those who preached it, at the time they were preaching. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bindi Posted August 1, 2015 even if a modern day science related masterpiece was written to try to explain and point to ultimate Truth by using the most exacting words or text possible (without metaphor or allegory) such would still effectively be some unreachable, non-understandable thing to most or many (not unlike the T.T.C. is to many of us westerners) unless the one reading and or hearing could really see and hear... thus the parables in the Bible don't and cant' really hide any secrets or secret knowledge, since it's all in plain sight but our perception is veiled. Something like this... In the 19th century, Lisco and Fairbairn stated that in the parables of Jesus, "the image borrowed from the visible world is accompanied by a truth from the invisible (spiritual) world" and that the parables of Jesus are not "mere similitudes which serve the purpose of illustration, but are internal analogies where nature becomes a witness for the spiritual world". Similarly, in the 20th century, calling a parable "an earthly story with a heavenly meaning", William Barclay states that the parables of Jesus use familiar examples to lead men's minds towards heavenly concepts. He suggests that Jesus did not form his parables merely as analogies but based on an "inward affinity between the natural and the spiritual order." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted August 1, 2015 Something like this...In the 19th century, Lisco and Fairbairn stated that in the parables of Jesus, "the image borrowed from the visible world is accompanied by a truth from the invisible (spiritual) world" and that the parables of Jesus are not "mere similitudes which serve the purpose of illustration, but are internal analogies where nature becomes a witness for the spiritual world".Similarly, in the 20th century, calling a parable "an earthly story with a heavenly meaning", William Barclay states that the parables of Jesus use familiar examples to lead men's minds towards heavenly concepts. He suggests that Jesus did not form his parables merely as analogies but based on an "inward affinity between the natural and the spiritual order."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus What does that mean ? It's fine if no one asks what the definition of spiritual and visible is. An analogy is an internally held concept so that's a truism. Equating two things is what an analogy does, but they have to be real things or no analogy is possible, it becomes a gargle. A parable is an earthly story with an earthly meaning. No wonder people are so hopelessly mixed up. When you begin adding nuclear reactors to cake to give it higher energy, then clouds and feathers to make it lighter. Poetic subjectivism doesn't mix with objective reality. Dreams don't mix with our waking state. What is 'inward affinity between the the natural and spiritual order'? It's nonsense. Does natural mean objective reality, or some type of natural like the difference between synthetic water and natural water ? See how idiotic it is. A thing is a thing. 'Spiritual' gets bandied about without definition. To some it's heaven, ringing bells, to others worship, prayer, silence. It's undefined. I say it's simply conscious awareness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted August 1, 2015 what it means Karl is that its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a strange duck to lay a good egg. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted August 1, 2015 what it means Karl is that its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a strange duck to lay a good egg. That sounds about right. This is all that nutter Kants fault for introducing floating philosophy. Funnily enough it was visible in album covers of the 70s. Roger Deans work is a good example and I noticed it creeping into scifi books where fiction was replaced by fantasy. The authors no longer grounded their work on extensions of objective reality, it was just a free for all of demons, swords and ray guns. In Star Wars it was combined into a light sabre- a better metaphor could not have been constructed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted August 1, 2015 Hmm, here's another plain as day:: Matthew 6:22-23 - The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted August 1, 2015 What does that mean ? It's fine if no one asks what the definition of spiritual and visible is. An analogy is an internally held concept so that's a truism. Equating two things is what an analogy does, but they have to be real things or no analogy is possible, it becomes a gargle. A parable is an earthly story with an earthly meaning. No wonder people are so hopelessly mixed up. When you begin adding nuclear reactors to cake to give it higher energy, then clouds and feathers to make it lighter. Poetic subjectivism doesn't mix with objective reality. Dreams don't mix with our waking state. What is 'inward affinity between the the natural and spiritual order'? It's nonsense. Does natural mean objective reality, or some type of natural like the difference between synthetic water and natural water ? See how idiotic it is. A thing is a thing. 'Spiritual' gets bandied about without definition. To some it's heaven, ringing bells, to others worship, prayer, silence. It's undefined. I say it's simply conscious awareness. No feathers in my cake, please. I remember that from a Three Stooges episode and it wasn't pretty... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted August 1, 2015 Hmm, here's another plain as day:: Matthew 6:22-23 - The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! Hopeless. It's like gazing at a cloud and seeing shapes of things that appear. You can make things fit, but what he meant was a mystery. I think the dope was just too strong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) it's more of mystery as to how even stones may sing yet man may be mute... Edited August 2, 2015 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted August 1, 2015 it's more of mystery as to how even stones may sing yet man is mute... Not such of a mystery. Stones were always more mainstream than Man :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
