Beyond the spiritual heart

[Bindi]

That is very correct Bindi.

 

The goal is non-attachment. If you are a attached, need or desire a thing in order to be happy you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

It means you have work to do.

 

I am not attached to it. Just saying it is a level of non-attachment many of us have achieved.

 

I use it to help people and only to help people.

 

Tom, you have done this practice daily, for an extended period of time, while some in your group have been doing it for decades.

 

The quote was

 

"As with the other subtle experiences this... is set aside with non-attachment."

 

Not "practiced daily with non-attachment."

 

This is from your source, not mine.

[Apech]

Interesting, thanks.  Have you / do you practice with a yidam?   Or more reading of the topic?

 

I'm not looking for a history lesson but do you know when/how these lineages formed? Are they older or arose from older traditions?

 

That's a very interesting question.  I'm not sure I can answer it precisely at present ... however ... certainly Tantric Buddhism arose in medieval Indian period ... maybe 600 - 1300 AD ... (not exact dates but just to give a picture of the period).  There is some evidence (wait for Gatito to pounce here) that in the earliest period tantric masters were or could be both/either Hindu or Buddhist - for instance Tilopa is named in Hindu tantra master lists by some.  Anyway that aside - the lineages of Buddhist Tantra originate from the primordial Buddha (e.g. Samantabadhra or Vajradhara) and not so much in the way the sutra lineages come from the historical Buddha - which is code for they arose through direct revelation /meditational experience of the masters.

 

Not sure what you mean by older traditions.  Perhaps you can give me clue what you are hinting at here.

 

I do practice with yidam - mostly vajrasattva at present thought also Chenrezig and Medicine Buddha.

[Jonesboy]

Hi Bindi,

 

I find your quote very interesting.

 

The Gospel of Thomas is accepted as the oldest teachings of Jesus. It has been acknowledged as the original teachings and is much older than the writings of Paul.

 

So your response was this.

They also quote Paul's words in Galatians iii.8: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Such a passage as this must serve to confirm the view that one element at least in the development of Gnosticism is a re-interpretation of Christian teaching." (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, p. 31)

So the argument is to say that Paul, who never met Jesus and sent a letter "Galatians" is now the source for GOT?

 

If anything it would seem that Christian teaching is a re-interpretation of Gnostic teachings as that quote shows.

[Jonesboy]

 

Tom, you have done this practice daily, for an extended period of time, while some in your group have been doing it for decades.

 

The quote was

 

"As with the other subtle experiences this... is set aside with non-attachment."

 

Not "practiced daily with non-attachment."

 

This is from your source, not mine.

Thank you for the advise.

[Jeff]

 

A couple of scholarly interpretations of Thomas 22...

 

R. McL. Wilson writes: "The idea that only the childlike can enter the Kingdom of God is, of course, familiar from the canonical Gospels. It may be added that this saying is one of the few which have anything in the nature of a narrative setting, although whether the words which introduce the saying derive from genuine tradition or were constructed for the purpose is matter for debate. Certainly all that follows the disciples' question is far removed from the canonical portrait of Jesus. Yet even here there is a basis in the New Testament: as Grant and Freedman note, listing passages cited by Doresse, the unity of believers in the body of Christ is based on New Testament teaching. They also quote Paul's words in Galatians iii.8: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Such a passage as this must serve to confirm the view that one element at least in the development of Gnosticism is a re-interpretation of Christian teaching." (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, p. 31)

 

J. D. Crossan writes of 22b: "Robinson has shown most persuasively how the original Kingdom and Children aphorism has moved along two hermeneutical trajectories. One is the 'orthodox' baptismal interpretation represented by John 3:1-10 and developed in later patristic texts (1962a:106-107). The other is the 'unorthodox' and gnostic interpretation represented here by Gos. Thom. 22b: 'When one considers that repudiation of sex was a condition to admission to some Gnostic groups, somewhat as baptism was a condition of admission into the church at large, it is not too difficult to see how a logion whose original Sitz im Leben was baptism could be taken over and remolded in the analogous Sitz im Leben of admission to the sect' (1962a: 108). Thus Jesus' reply in Gos. Thom. 22b involves a fourfold 'when you make,' each of which contains the obliteration of bodily differences, and each of which is known by itself or in various combinations from other gnostic sources (save the fourth). Thus 'when you make the two one' reappears in Gos. Thom. 106 and combined as 'when the two become one and the male with the female (is) neither male nor female' in the Gospel of the Egyptians (Hennecke and Schneemelcher: 1.168). These, and Robinson's more detailed examples (1962a: 108, 281-284), show that the setting and saying in Gos. Thom. 22a have been redactionally expanded in typically gnostic terms by the dialogue of 22b. 'The result is a logion all but transformed beyond recognition, were it not that the hint provided by the basic structure is confirmed by the introduction, in which it becomes clear that the logion grew out of the saying about the children' (Robinson, 1962a: 109)." (In Fragments, p. 323)

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas22.html

 

Hi Bindi,

 

Maybe you could translate/explain your post to me.  I have no idea what you (or your scholars) are attempting to say on this point with the above words.

 

Thanks,

Jeff

[dawei]

Not sure what you mean by older traditions.  Perhaps you can give me clue what you are hinting at here.

 

Just trying to see how old the practices possibly were... if more ancient or more recent (relatively speaking).   Thanks.

[Bindi]

Hi Bindi,

 

I find your quote very interesting.

 

The Gospel of Thomas is accepted as the oldest teachings of Jesus. It has been acknowledged as the original teachings and is much older than the writings of Paul.

 

So your response was this.

 

So the argument is to say that Paul, who never met Jesus and sent a letter "Galatians" is now the source for GOT?

 

If anything it would seem that Christian teaching is a re-interpretation of Gnostic teachings as that quote shows.

Their is no acknowledgement that the GOT is the oldest teachings of Jesus.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

 

[The Gospel of Thomas] is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[2] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.

 

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

[Bindi]

Hi Bindi,

 

Maybe you could translate/explain your post to me.  I have no idea what you (or your scholars) are attempting to say on this point with the above words.

 

Thanks,

Jeff

It's late here, I will come back to this.

[gatito]

(wait for Gatito to pounce here)

 

Why would I do that?

[Apech]

Why would I do that?

 

 

Just thought you might.

[Jonesboy]

Their is no acknowledgement that the GOT is the oldest teachings of Jesus.

 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

 

[The Gospel of Thomas] is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[2] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.

 

Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

Hi Bindi,

 

For centuries, biblical scholars followed the Augustinian hypothesis: that the Gospel of Matthew was the first to be written, Mark used Matthew in the writing of his, and Luke followed both Matthew and Mark in his (the Gospel of John is quite different to the other three, which because of their similarity are called the Synoptic Gospels). Nineteenth-century New Testament scholars who rejected Matthew's priority in favor of Markan priority speculated that Matthew's and Luke's authors drew the material they have in common with the Gospel of Mark from Mark's Gospel. But Matthew and Luke also share large sections of text not found in Mark. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source, termed Q.[9][10]

 

Herbert Marsh, an Englishman, is seen by some as the first person to hypothesize the existence of a "narrative" source and a "sayings" source, although he included in the latter parables unique to Matthew and unique to Luke.[11] In his 1801 work, A dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels, he used the Hebrew letter Aleph (א) to denote the narrative source and the letter beth (ב) to denote the sayings source.[12]

 

In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third hypothetical source, referred to as M, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in Mark or Luke.[15] And some material present only in Luke might have come from an also unknown L source. This four-source hypothesis posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark, and three lost sources: Q, M, and L. (M material is represented by green in the above chart.)

 

Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark, Pierson Parker posited an early version of Matthew (Aramaic M or proto-Matthew) as the primary source.[16] Parker argued that it was not possible to separate Streeter's "M" material from the material in Matthew parallel to Mark.[17][18]

 

In the early 20th century, more than a dozen reconstructions of Q were made. But these reconstructions differed so much from each other that not a single verse of Matthew was present in all of them. As a result, interest in Q subsided and it was neglected for many decades.

 

This state of affairs changed in the 1960s after translations of a newly discovered and analogous sayings collection, the Gospel of Thomas, became available. James M. Robinson of the Jesus Seminar and Helmut Koester proposed that collections of sayings such as Q and Gospel of Thomas represented the earliest Christian materials at an early point in a trajectory that eventually resulted in the canonical gospels.

 

I think this is a pretty hard point for either of us to prove or disprove. I think on this we both have to accept each other views.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

[Bindi]

Hi Bindi,

 

...

 

This state of affairs changed in the 1960s after translations of a newly discovered and analogous sayings collection, the Gospel of Thomas, became available. James M. Robinson of the Jesus Seminar and Helmut Koester proposed that collections of sayings such as Q and Gospel of Thomas represented the earliest Christian materials at an early point in a trajectory that eventually resulted in the canonical gospels.

 

I think this is a pretty hard point for either of us to prove or disprove. I think on this we both have to accept each other views.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

 

Did Thomas Know the

Synoptic Gospels? (2014)

 

I respond to those who align the hypothetical Q with Thomas in a bid to establish the

latter’s primitivity and independence. It is an argument that is endemic in the

literature, but it is no more persuasive for its frequent repetition.

 

In the cases I document, the scholars in question are making the case that

the hypothetical Q is so similar to the Gospel of Thomas that both should be

anchored in the first century. Far from being an argument about the pervasiveness

of sayings collections in antiquity, the alignment between Q and Thomas

focuses on these as special representatives of a unique, primitive sub-genre of

first-century sayings gospels. The argument runs that they are different from and

more primitive than the narrative gospels that found their way into the canon.

But the argument is weak not only because of the key differences between Q

and Thomas, differences that make better sense on a source-critical rather than

a genre-critical approach (Goodacre 2002: 170-85), but also because sayings

collections are so pervasive in antiquity that one does not need to isolate Q and

Thomas as allegedly special first-century cases. There is, after all, a control. One

can ask whether there are any extant literary works that focus on Jesus’ sayings

or discourses that date from the second to the fourth centuries and there are, of

course, plenty of them (Goodacre 2012: 10). In other words, the argument that

Thomas’s genre demands a first-century setting is without merit.6 It is one of

those ‘first impressions’ (Goodacre 2012: 1-25; cf. Goodacre 2002: 1-18) that

sounds persuasive in the introductory level sketches but which evaporates on

closer examination.

 

 

Moreover, the idea that Thomas pulled his Synoptic parallels from pre-

Synoptic ‘pools’ of oral tradition runs into difficulties when it comes to conceptualizing

this model. The difficulty with the multiple ‘pool’ theory is that

Thomas has parallels to material from every single strand of Synoptic material,

double tradition, triple tradition, special Matthew, special Luke, even special

Mark, something that creates a serious anomaly for the notion of Thomas’s independence

(Goodacre 2012: 20-24; cf. Meier 1991: 137). If Thomas did not know

the Synoptics, the author was able to access material from every pool of tradition

that fed them, a striking phenomenon given Thomas’s social location and

idiosyncratic theological profile. It is much more straightforward to suggest that

Thomas simply knew the Synoptics.

 

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/36/3/282.full.pdf+html

[Bindi]

Hi Bindi,

 

Maybe you could translate/explain your post to me.  I have no idea what you (or your scholars) are attempting to say on this point with the above words.

 

Thanks,

Jeff

What I am attempting to say is:

 

Gnosticism is a re-interpretation of Christian teaching... all but transformed beyond recognition.

 

As such I neither take the gnostic additions in the Gospel Of Thomas as proof of anything, nor do I see the point of discussing the gnostic aspects of the Gospel of Thomas as a valid argument for any point.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Jeff and Tom,

Why do you quote and misrepresent the Bible, offer meaningless passages and argue about what is written in this dead book while at the same time claim to have powers of "light transmission" far beyond the mildly advanced adept?

 

If you had such powers, and even if you didn't, why don't you ask Jesus Christ yourselves? The Living Christ?

 

?

[Jeff]

Jeff and Tom,

Why do you quote and misrepresent the Bible, offer meaningless passages and argue about what is written in this dead book while at the same time claim to have powers of "light transmission" far beyond the mildly advanced adept?

If you had such powers, and even if you didn't, why don't you ask Jesus Christ yourselves? The Living Christ?

?

 

I am sorry to hear that you consider Jesus's words in the gospels just a "dead book", because I think there is much wisdom in it. But, I agree with you that everyone should spend time directly with Jesus.

 

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. (Romans 12:4-5 KJV)

 

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:16-21 KJV)

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Jeff, why do you have a large black cloudy blockage in the middle back of your head? About 8 inches in diameter?

Do you see anything at all with your third eye?

[Jeff]

Jeff, why do you have a large black cloudy blockage in the middle back of your head? About 8 inches in diameter?

Do you see anything at all with your third eye?

 

Wow TI... Randomly trying to invade people's personal space without asking permission... Very rude...

 

Also, you are nowhere near my space now, so I have no idea what you are looking at.

 

Best wishes.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Wow TI... Randomly trying to invade people's personal space without asking permission... Very rude... :)Also, you are nowhere near my space now, so I have no idea what you are looking at.Best wishes.

I saw that yesterday. It came in a flash, unrequested.

I have no intention of invading your space nor the legion of entities whom are causing your blindness.

[Jeff]

I saw that yesterday. It came in a flash, unrequested.

I have no intention of invading your space nor the legion of entities whom are causing your blindness.

 

Conscious or subconscious action, the intent is still there. Here are a few more words from the gospels which I offer for consideration to the group (and those focused on "powers")...

 

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:1-12 NIV)

 

[gatito]

Just thought you might.

 

Nope. Far too boring...

[Apech]

Nope. Far too boring...

 

 

Not as boring as peeping at other people's auras and long bible quotes.

[3bob]

Bindi's original post (and some others) is not boring, besides how could a smart cat ever really get bored?

[Tibetan_Ice]

Conscious or subconscious action, the intent is still there. Here are a few more words from the gospels which I offer for consideration to the group (and those focused on "powers").

 

...

 

Love is good. Love and wisdom are better. Do you think Jesus loved the demons he cast into the pigs? Did he love the pigs whom were killed? Why do you think love is blind? What happens when you don't temper love with discernment?

 

I just can't believe in a book that says that unless you believe in something you are forever damned. I also don't believe that Jesus said most of any quote from the bible.

 

You speak about intent? There are thousands of thoughts, images and formless forms running through the mind every split second. I do not will this to happen, I do not intend it. It is a byproduct of the many lifetimes that have registered into the super subconscious. If I spend my time examining this flow or stream of consciousness and I learn to pick out and recognize specific pieces, it more a statement of becoming more aware through practice, not intent.

 

There are thousands and thousands of beings in the other planes, superimposed over the earth plane whom are watching right now. There is no privacy.

 

Further, everything that happens is recorded in the etheric records Akashic records which are not bound by time and space. It is a public library, but you have to have a library card.

 

You think that third eye sight is a power? Everyone dreams. Everyone goes to or through the astral planes at night. What do you think you use to look when your physical eyes are closed and the sight sense it turned off? Ever hear of pratyahara? The turning off of the five senses? It is a well known term in yoga. If you can sit absolutely still for an hour, you will learn that senses shut off after about the 40 minute mark. What remains after the senses are shut off, the eyes are shut, is third eye sight. If you let the content of what remains drag away your attention, then you might think that there is only "knowing". But if you train yourself to watch what appears, remains and then disappears, you might learn a few things. It is not a power.

 

Further, you, who give "light transmissions", seem to have no knowledge about how this all works.

This is a pretty good rendition..

 

From Daskalos' teachings:

We all know we are living in a material body and we have a Psychical Body which some call the astral body. “Astral” comes from the Latin and means star. We have a Noetical Body. Saint Paul called this body the Spiritual Body. In our system we call it the Noetical Body so as not to confuse it with the word Spirit, which is the nature of God and also our own Divine Nature.

 

These three bodies are independent of each other. An advanced mystic can self-consciously at will, leave his material body and live more fully in a Psychical Body in the Psychical Worlds but this Psychical Body must still have the Noetical Body connected and interwoven with it in order to live. Likewise, a very advanced mystic can self-consciously leave the Psychical Body and even more fully live in just his or her Noetical Body. Furthermore, a mystic or Researcher of Truth residing only in the Noetical Worlds who expresses as a Soul and not just a personality can re-appear in the Psychical Worlds, such as one who has aborted his material and Psychical Body and now fully dwells in the Noetical Worlds can materialize a material body to use in the material worlds. Through the force of their own will they can be seen, shake hands, converse and provide real physical help.

 

...

 

In spiritually un-awakened people, the Psycho-Noetical Body looks undeveloped. It appears as an unshaped oval mass taking on the colors according to the person’s feelings and thoughts. So as we work to purify our emotions and clean our thoughts we automatically shape our Psychical and Noetical Body closer to its perfect archetype. We are born in this world without any real perception of who we are as a personality until around the age of seven. Up to this point in time, all we know is our name, gender and immediate environment. Yet, Karma permitting, our material body tends develops properly without much effort on our part. Our material body grows from the center of each atom. It is the Etheric Vitality that maintains the body’s health and makes it grow. Our bodies are a very precious gift from God and we must love and respect them.

 

Yet the common person has no idea about the other two higher bodies but the Researcher of Truth knows the higher bodies in two ways. The first way is by theoretical knowledge. You read or hear about them and you understand they exist. The second way is to come to know them is practically, which means you start to use them consciously. So far you have only used them sub-consciously.

 

[Jeff]

Hi TI,

 

No need to continue on discussing the point, I realize that you find no value in any of the written words of Jesus. Also, I agree with you that there are infinite worlds and planes.

 

You quoted Daskalos (think his real name is Stylianos Atteshlis) are you a follower of his? Seems significantly different than the Dzogchen practices you have posted on.

 

 

Thanks,

Jeff

Edited December 12, 2015 by Jeff

[3bob]

I think it safe to say that most of us can handle seeing a little dirty laundry... but not a 3/4 ton truck load of it with "tit for tat" written all over it...  whether subtle or not so subtle.