"My kingdom is not of this world"

[rene]

2 minutes ago, 3bob said:

the Tao is said to be "standing alone without change", yet it is also said to "go on is to be far" and also "moves" along with "to return" which all can be found in the T.T.C. chap.14, 16, 25....etc..which can bring us back to chap 1 where "flow" and "origin" are mentioned which to me is related to the "mysteries" and permutations if you will of Tao.  (like "The One,The Two, The Three, and The Ten thousand".   Thus there is no denial of the manifest as in goes far and "to return to the root is to find peace"

 

Right, which illustrates the semantic difficulties, and confusion, that unfortunate word choices can bring.

[3bob]

in some cases yes,  in this case I'd say no since that generalization does not apply being that the T.T.C. word choices were and are of the best possible in context and content from that source (or Sage who is not playing mental or intellectual gymnastics which lacks direct experience)  as a form of conveyance.

Edited October 4, 2017 by 3bob

[rene]

28 minutes ago, 3bob said:

in some cases yes,  in this case I'd say no since that generalization does not apply being that the T.T.C. word choices were and are of the best possible in context and content from that source (or Sage who is not playing mental or intellectual gymnastics which lacks direct experience)  as a form of conveyance.

 

Refering to Laozi, I agree with your thinking. Refering to the translators, there is too much buddhist/christian/other bias present in many of the translations for me to agree; I doubt they shared LiEhr's perspective. Such would be the case even moreso - if one holds the TTC had several authors.

[zerostao]

From my taiji perspective, It could be the relationship between this world and the "other."
Transcending of consciousness from one dimension to another.
The play between yin-yang is evolving; Jing is where the materialist is, and Qi actualizes all the possibilities between Heaven and Earth. It isn't about the root or the head; it is the relationship between the two. Those that are conscious of Qi dimension can subtly direct their life flow. Still very mortal with some awareness, still affected by entropy.  Look at Rene's archer, resting in silent gratitude, residing in the heart, ready to transcend entropy and become self-determined. The inner state appreciates and expresses in actions, not words. The heart understands the importance of the archer's accuracy. It is the parent and child of ten thousand things.

[Cheshire Cat]

8 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

 

Sigh.... <Whatever...>

 

Caiphas, the high priest, was supposedly the one who orchestrated the whole thing and paid-off Judas. His servant, Malchus, was present during the arrest and got his ear cut off by Peter. And, even aside from this, the Roman province of Judea operated under Roman martial law. The soldiers were the police. I think the blame would fall on the people who called the police rather than the police themselves.

 

The entire narrative of the gospel has a definite, clear and coherent anti-pharisaic narrative: Jesus himself (who generally appears forgiving and caring) insults Pharisees on many occasions. 

 

Directly:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and every kind of impurity." (---> sacks of shit)

 

And trough parables like in the story of the good samaritan.

 

Knowing this and assuming that Jesus, who said to forgive seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22) would not be so sectarian to condemn people based solely on the sect they belong to, we should conclude that either Jesus created the foundation for anti-semitism ... or the anti-pharisaic narrative is an artificial expedient to clear the roman empire from the crime of being God's murderer.

 

It's historically inaccurate to think that a priest could take 500 hundred roman soldiers to arrest 13 hippie men that used to say "love each other" and "if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also". There was something more that the gospels mention only briefly here and there.

"Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…" (Matthew 10:34)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

(...)

 

I don't think that a reformatting of the story for the sake of making it appear better to Romans is a sensible conclusion, though. Christians were publicly persecuted in the Roman Empire until the Edict of Milan in 313. Paul himself was arrested and wrote some of the New Testament while incarcerated.

Christianity, for the most part, became popular among the minorities in the Empire and the oppressed people in the foreign provinces (e.g. Syrians and Copts) and only became popular over a very long stretch of time in places where the Greco-Roman religions were prominent (e.g. Greece). The first three hundred years were spent both on proselytizing and keeping hidden they didn't have much (or anything, really) to do with winning over the empire.

 

There wasn't a single unified christian sect, but hundreds of them. And there are those who proselytized amongst romans (becoming really popular amongst roman soldiers).

 

When christianity became the empire's religion, it was the empire that won over the religion. Just think about the Council of Nicea when Constantine forced christian authorities to create a unified form of religion.

 

 

Quote

 

With regards to incoherence, there is incoherence between the different gospels---they say different things in the details. But each text is, itself, self-coherent. 

 

As I said before, each gospel generally try to be coherent in delivering a specific message... but on many occasions they made mistakes and left hints and clues of the real story behind the myth. And you find them where coherence falls apart.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Cheshire Cat

[3bob]

21 hours ago, rene said:

 

Refering to Laozi, I agree with your thinking. Refering to the translators, there is too much buddhist/christian/other bias present in many of the translations for me to agree; I doubt they shared LiEhr's perspective. Such would be the case even moreso - if one holds the TTC had several authors.

 

I'd say the potential for an 'x' amount of meaning to get lost in translation is an aspect that more or less applies to all spiritual teachings.  Btw. even if the T.T.C. and Bible (or whatever) had never been translated after being written say only by Laozi or Jesus we still have millions of translators to come afterwards, namely every single person who reads such texts and interprets it how they will.  Thus even if such a text was untouched & in perfect condition coming from only the master or sage who wrote it  (perhaps hundreds or thousands of years before)  that in no way means that it is guaranteed to be fully understood!  Yet if the author was moved by the Spirit in his writing some of that can be carried through or over to the reader to whatever degree they can hear or receive it even after someone else may have added a translation layer to it, but if the text never had any Spirit to it in the first place then translations wouldn't matter anyway.  We can spend a lot of time looking for the "perfect" untouched, correct or original  spiritual text and its probable meanings but there still remains the catch of what it takes to perfectly understand a perfect text!  (beyond any common worldly meanings it may have) 

Edited October 5, 2017 by 3bob

[rene]

5 hours ago, 3bob said:

 

I'd say the potential for an 'x' amount of meaning to get lost in translation is an aspect that more or less applies to all spiritual teachings.  Btw. even if the T.T.C. and Bible (or whatever) had never been translated after being written say only by Laozi or Jesus we still have millions of translators to come afterwards, namely every single person who reads such texts and interprets it how they will.  Thus even if such a text was untouched & in perfect condition coming from only the master or sage who wrote it  (perhaps hundreds or thousands of years before)  that in no way means that it is guaranteed to be fully understood!  Yet if the author was moved by the Spirit in his writing some of that can be carried through or over to the reader to whatever degree they can hear or receive it even after someone else may have added a translation layer to it, but if the text never had any Spirit to it in the first place then translations wouldn't matter anyway. We can spend a lot of time looking for the "perfect" untouched, correct or original  spiritual text and its probable meanings but there still remains the catch of what it takes to perfectly understand a perfect text!  (beyond any common worldly meanings it may have) 

(my bolding above)

 

Yes Yes! YES! It is what comes through the words, rather than the words themselves, that is perceived, and informs as to intent/meaning! Very well put, 3bob. Very well indeed!

 

That must be why I like the Feng/English translation so much. I've been told many times its not the most accurate rendition, but to me it's not over-burdened with excess ideas and it sure speaks to me. (-:

 

Warmest regards

 

 

[Wu Ming Jen]

In the West, the philosophical discussion of ultimate reality is focused on the conception of God, which has been formed under the influences of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and Greek philosophy. There are many basic assumptions in the Western conception of God that are not shared in Lao Tzu's thought. Three important ones may be mentioned here. First, God is conceived as a Being or some "substantial" existence. Second, He is believed to be ontologically different from the nature of the universe. Third, He is said to be in some important sense "personal" in essence. On these basic assumptions, there are many 15 philosophical problems that are peculiar to the Western discussion of philosophy of religion

 

The question of ultimate reality is a perennial problem of religion and philosophy. Lao Tzu has offered a special way of looking at the problem that has set an important tone in Chinese cultural history, and has attracted many people in the West as a challenging possible alternative to the traditional way of looking at the problem.

 

Partly for the purpose of understanding the unique position of Lao Tzu's thought and partly for the purpose of comparing it with some other systems of philosophy, we shall define the term "ultimate reality" to mean either or both of two things: (1) that which is held to be "real" in the "ultimate" sense, and (2) that which is held to be the "ultimate source" of all things.

 

It is significant to note that the major religions and philosophies East and West generally affirm the "existence" of only "one" ultimate reality (in either or both senses). This is probably very much due to man's strong desire to see and interpret all things from a unitary point of view. But they have developed very different conceptions about the nature of the "existence" or "oneness" of the ultimate reality. Thus, there are the notions of "Yahweh" in Judaism, "God" in Christianity, "Allah" in Islam, "Heaven" or “T’ai-chi” (Great Ultimate) in Confucianism, "Brahman" in Hinduism, "Buddha-nature" in Mahayana Buddhism, Plotinus' "the One," Eckhart's "Godhead," Aquinas' "God," Spinoza's "Substance," Lao Tzu's "Tao," etc. In these systems of thought the ultimately real is in some way identified or associated with the ultimate source of all things. But how they are identified or associated differs significantly among them.

 

To set the stage for our discussion of Lao Tzu's thought, I shall briefly outline three different views about the relationship between the ultimately real and the ultimate source. According to traditional Christianity, the ultimately real is a "personal" God. He is the source of all things not in the sense that all things evolve from His "substance," but in the sense that the universe was "created" according to His "will" for some historical or eschatological "purpose." The universe has a different ontological nature from God. According to Shankara's (8th century) Advaita Vedanta, Brahman, the ultimately real, is without any personal or impersonal attribute. "It" is the source of the universe in the sense that the ontological nature of the latter is identical with the former. But the myriad things in time and space are regarded as the results of our "ignorance" (avidya) and some kind of magical trick (maya) rather than a "real" production or creation from or by the Brahman without qualities.

 

We find something very peculiar Lao tzu position his ultimately real and ultimate source are the same thing,Tao the nameless and the named. I am sure he must have been very good at solving puzzles.

[Cheshire Cat]

8 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

 

The mention of the sword is not as you imply; it has wider usage and even the passage you cite (when read in full) does not say what you are trying to make it say:

[...]

 

You might not know the spiritual significance of fire and water---but it is here. He casts fire upon the earth, the activation of spirit---and how he wishes that the whole world were enkindled. He has baptism, and how distressed he shall be until it is completed. Fire and Water of spiritual alchemy. It doesn't matter if you are looking into Taoist, Indic, Hermetic, or even African spirituality; fire and water are the universal aspects of spiritual transformation. He is not making a political statement. There is no factionalism like Jews against Romans. He is setting people capable of spiritual development at variance with with people who are not capable of it. This holds true, as well, if you disregard alchemy and only regard the fire and water as religious sacraments.

 

Theologians feel entitled to express abstruse explanations about the meaning of Jesus' words: they pretend that Jesus used to talk to illiterate people about medieval philosophies in the 1st century.

They try to convince us that, even if Jesus was 100% sure that the majority of people, upon hearing "And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one" (Luke 22:36) would actually buy one, he still veiled his medieval philosophies and firmly promote them amongst illiterate people.

 

But I'm free to think that when Jesus said something, he actually mean precisely that thing.

 

Here,  he talks exactly like zealots used to do:

 

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And as a man's enemies shall be they of his own household

 

"And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one"

 

And we know that zealots were the kind of people that the roman empire would persecute with cohorts... and the gospel tells us precisely that.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

 

[...]

 

You can cite whatever parable you want. The pattern will be the same. It's not about groups of people but propensities towards or against a direct experience, where spirituality is concerned. [...]

 

 

Actually, on many occasions it's about groups of people.

For example, the samaritans were generally considered to be misguided and impure people: when a samaritan appears in the narrative, it's the outcast, the wrongdoer.

 

Jesus instructs his disciples precisely "“Don’t take the road that leads to the Gentiles, and don’t enter any Samaritan town".

When he met the samaritan woman, he was alone because his followers don't talk to such people and obviously she's not a respectable woman according to Jewish canon "For you’ve had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband".

 

When reading the parable of the good samaritan, people often miss the simple, direct and straightforward message of the story: Priests and Levites are worse than samaritans! Why? Because from time to time a samaritan became a zealot!

 

8 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

 

[...]

 

But, again on the issue of antisemitism, Jewish-Christians were actively persecuted by the Sanhedrin, Jewish religious court into the second century. Some of this (the early stuff) is detailed in the book of Acts. So, obviously, there was tension---for the most part, it was the Jewish side of things that was violent. But, even so, the majority of Christians were actually Jews---this remained the case until into the second century. Again, it is unlikely that they were anti-Semitic (i.e. most were actually Semites) and more likely that they were anti-the-Jewish-temple-authorities who were persecuting them.

 

The correct term would be anti-pharisaic because even God in the old testament appears to be anti-semite, when he instructs his people to kill other semite groups. The descendants of Sem are semite.

 

But since modern judaism has a strong pharisaic setting, when we talk about anti-semitism we are referring to the same pharisaic culture that Jesus condemns in the gospels.

 

 

8 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

Although, the idea that there were hundreds of Christianities is a relatively new idea and one that is mostly bullshit. As early as the year 50 or 70 there was a catechism in existence---the Didache. But, one thing relatively common to early Christianity was that it was more strongly connected to the active teachings of apostles and successors to apostles than it was to abstract doctrines. But, in either case, we have a catechism which consolidated doctrine (to a great extent) and we have the structural core of apostolic involvement and apostolic succession. These things formed the backbone of early Christianity. Variety may have existed in the details or in the variations that different peoples brought to the liturgy and the ceremony but the doctrine and ethics were largely the same. Plurality in doctrine only really emerged after Christianity was decriminalized and people in the educated classes were able to write openly about it and propagate, spread ideas, and squabble over details.

 

It's not historically proven that the didachè was a common doctrine amongst various christian communities and the apostles were often of different opinions about crucial matters. The vast of majority of communities were founded by Paul and he never met Jesus in person.

It was only with the council of Nicea that Christianity became a homogeneous religion. 

 

8 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

With regards to Roman converts, I think it is kind of silly to say that it became really popular among Roman Soldiers.

 

Recent archeological discoveries prove that while christianity was popular for common soldiers, mithraism was the religion of the military elite. Mithraic temples and symbolic cross are often found in ancient roman military encampments.

 

8 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

 

With regards to Constantine, your new post contradicts your old post. Your first post says that the gospels were written to be more appealing to Romans---i.e. to win over the Roman Empire. But in the new one, it is reversed: the empire won over the Christians. The latter is probably more true than the former. The Christians were doing their own things mostly in secret because of the ongoing history of persecution. Constantine issued the Edict of Milan and that ended the persecution. But the story about why he was friendly to Christianity was that he had a vision of the Chi-Rho symbol in the sun, decided to use it has his standard, and (from then onward) conquered his opponents and became emperor of the East and Western Roman empire. When he made Christianity into a state religion, he wanted to blend it with Roman customs---like sun worship (which can be found in some symbols to this day). But that sparked debates about what was or wasn't Christian---and the "hundreds of Christianities" (not really---but hundreds of ideas about orthodoxy, at least) emerged. Which is backwards from the series of events that you propose...

 

 

 

 

[3bob]

4 hours ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

In the West, the philosophical discussion of ultimate reality is focused on the conception of God, which has been formed under the influences of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and Greek philosophy. There are many basic assumptions in the Western conception of God that are not shared in Lao Tzu's thought. Three important ones may be mentioned here. First, God is conceived as a Being or some "substantial" existence. Second, He is believed to be ontologically different from the nature of the universe. Third, He is said to be in some important sense "personal" in essence. On these basic assumptions, there are many 15 philosophical problems that are peculiar to the Western discussion of philosophy of religion

 

The question of ultimate reality is a perennial problem of religion and philosophy. Lao Tzu has offered a special way of looking at the problem that has set an important tone in Chinese cultural history, and has attracted many people in the West as a challenging possible alternative to the traditional way of looking at the problem.

 

Partly for the purpose of understanding the unique position of Lao Tzu's thought and partly for the purpose of comparing it with some other systems of philosophy, we shall define the term "ultimate reality" to mean either or both of two things: (1) that which is held to be "real" in the "ultimate" sense, and (2) that which is held to be the "ultimate source" of all things.

 

It is significant to note that the major religions and philosophies East and West generally affirm the "existence" of only "one" ultimate reality (in either or both senses). This is probably very much due to man's strong desire to see and interpret all things from a unitary point of view. But they have developed very different conceptions about the nature of the "existence" or "oneness" of the ultimate reality. Thus, there are the notions of "Yahweh" in Judaism, "God" in Christianity, "Allah" in Islam, "Heaven" or “T’ai-chi” (Great Ultimate) in Confucianism, "Brahman" in Hinduism, "Buddha-nature" in Mahayana Buddhism, Plotinus' "the One," Eckhart's "Godhead," Aquinas' "God," Spinoza's "Substance," Lao Tzu's "Tao," etc. In these systems of thought the ultimately real is in some way identified or associated with the ultimate source of all things. But how they are identified or associated differs significantly among them.

 

To set the stage for our discussion of Lao Tzu's thought, I shall briefly outline three different views about the relationship between the ultimately real and the ultimate source. According to traditional Christianity, the ultimately real is a "personal" God. He is the source of all things not in the sense that all things evolve from His "substance," but in the sense that the universe was "created" according to His "will" for some historical or eschatological "purpose." The universe has a different ontological nature from God. According to Shankara's (8th century) Advaita Vedanta, Brahman, the ultimately real, is without any personal or impersonal attribute. "It" is the source of the universe in the sense that the ontological nature of the latter is identical with the former. But the myriad things in time and space are regarded as the results of our "ignorance" (avidya) and some kind of magical trick (maya) rather than a "real" production or creation from or by the Brahman without qualities.

 

We find something very peculiar Lao tzu position his ultimately real and ultimate source are the same thing,Tao the nameless and the named. I am sure he must have been very good at solving puzzles.

 

I'd say yes to your last sentence and as alluded to me in the T.T.C. with -  "goes far", "returns' and is "standing alone without change yet pervading all"...  Btw...there are several major schools of "Hindu" related Shaivism some of which you may be interested in along the lines of  comparative information - and they are not  Advaita Vedanta which you probably already know?  

[rene]

6 hours ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

....

We find something very peculiar Lao tzu position his ultimately real and ultimate source are the same thing,Tao the nameless and the named. I am sure he must have been very good at solving puzzles.

 

Yes. That's the source and origin of what I call 'Both, same time.'

 

Thank you for the post  Wu Ming Jen; delightful to read. (-:

 

warm greetings

 

[3bob]

16 minutes ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

Sorry 3Bob for the distractions. I won't post any more off topic things...it's obvious that it won't go anywhere constructive any time soon...

 

no problem Apeiron&Peiron for the op was about a Bible quote - btw. you have shared tons of information for any who want to dig deeper into it!! 

[Cheshire Cat]

14 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

Sorry 3Bob for the distractions. I won't post any more off topic things...it's obvious that it won't go anywhere constructive any time soon...

 

Yes, I can't clear 2000 years of christian brainwashing with a few written lines.

It's enough to read the texts themselves to see where's the truth.

 

Paul's churches and the ones established by the other major apostles had no connections and sometimes they were in opposition: it's clear in Paul's epistles.

 

Beware of theologians and preachers.

 

[Apech]

(hopefully not adding to the digression)

 

The assimilation of pagan beliefs and cult centres into Christianity was actually an effective strategy which can been seen right across the ancient world and particularly in Egypt and the Celtic church.  What the commentators fail to take into account is that as Christianity became the majority religion the 'language', symbols and ideas with which it was communicated came inevitably from the pagan world - because nothing else existed in the popular imagination.  This is why the Isis/child Horus iconography was turned into Madonna and child - because it was an instantly recognisable and impactful image.  Also as Christians took over the cult centres they did not destroy and build again - they adapted.  For instance a pagan temple dedicated to healing or child birth would keep its traditional function with the gods replaced by appropriate saints.  This was kind of lost at the Reformation but maintained in Catholicism.

 

Jesus himself said (or is attributed to say) that he came to fulfil the law - which can be taken to mean that his mission, life and teachings were a fulfilment of ancient traditions - his identity with kingship (of any kind) suggests a fulfilment of the sacred duty of self sacrifice by leaders - chiefs, kings and so on - which I usually think of as the lineage of the wounded king.  There may be valid connections then with Osiris/Horus, Mithras or any other mystery tradition in this sense which do not take away from Jesus Christ but only confirm him.  Why this is confusing is the kind of exclusivity with which the Christian Fathers taught - though even they liked to say that there was an 'ante-deluvian' wisdom which predicted both Christ and the Trinity. (what we now call hermeticism).

[3bob]

That is a very interesting and involved subject Apech,  which btw. has some very similar parallels of Buddhists or Buddhism doing such things in India, China and many other places for thousands of years... perhaps or could I suggest a new op along these lines about assimilation and or adaptation be started?

Edited October 8, 2017 by 3bob

[Apech]

5 hours ago, 3bob said:

That is a very interesting and involved subject Apech,  which btw. has some very similar parallels of Buddhists or Buddhism doing such things in India, China and many other places for thousands of years... perhaps or could I suggest a new op along these lines about assimilation and or adaptation be started?

 

If you like you could start one.