earl
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by earl
-
-
Go with God, that's all.
Take care, earl -
While I haven't stopped in for a visit in awhile, do routinely check into conversations. I'd never heard of conditional immortality before, so may not be understanding these posts correctly. But if I understand conditional immortality to mean you believe or you blink out of existence, then we've merely progressed in our view of God, anthrpomorphically speaking from a jealous, sadistic narcissist who'd cast one into eternal damnation if not only aChristian, but a particular kind of believer to a God who's merely xenophobic-wll only allow Christians to hang out with Him-none of these Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc
Gee and I thought when God made the diveristy of Creation and deemed it good it implied he liked alot of different colors in the old crayon box. I'm with that great comparative religion scholar, Huston Smith, who, though he practices forms from a variety of religions, is a Christian, thought all of the world's religions were divinely inspired. If we choose to view God anthrpomorphically, then can't see how his Being would be less ethically evolved than humanity, then this is the era of recycling-we try not consign anything to the trash heap 
Have a good one, Earl -
Admin(s),
I was hoping you could check in and clean up some of the more recent venomous posts, which clearly fall into the category of personal attack. Anyone coming to this site right now to find a place of honest inquiry and welcome is going to find divisiveness and hostility. I know I would have turned right around if this stuff was flying around the board earlier this year when I was looking. You have my permission to remove any of my own posts that pertain to these threads as well. I'm frankly embarassed at the state this board is in right now, and how it would be perceived by someone on the outisde. For non-progressives looking for a reason to point fingers and laugh at us, they need look no further than here.
Thank you.
Oh my-shocked to see this post. Though I have not posted in a long while I visit from time to time. Have not seen the venomous posts you allude to. But venom should be the first red flag for the one spouting it that at least in that moment they are "disconnected from God." When we are taken up with actively pushing another out of our hearts then most certainly our hearts are nowhere open/large enough to let God in. "Fundamentally," none of us find God in our heads-our concepts of God-we find Him in our hearts and the Heart of creation as a whole. Bless you all, earl
-
Like the J-man said, "by their fruits shall ye know them." I'd say atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. with open hearts are more connected to humanity and the "Holy Spirit," than 2 people who espouse the same beliefs with judgmental, closed hearts. There is fundamentalism in every religion, (even Buddhist ones
), and that implies the attitude there is only 1 way to get it right and further mistakes beliefs in the "right thing" with being on the right path. Bottom line is if your path has "no heart," it isn't the right path. Beliefs separate, love unify. In fact, I think Jesus taught only 1 thing: love, not a whole litany of beliefs. It's everyone else who came along after Jesus that added a buncha of thought related to trying to wrap their minds around who he & God are. Anything that supports keeping an open heart gets the job done in my book and to many beliefs or holding too firmly to them often seems to work against that. take care, Earl -
Lilly,
I'm curious as to how you define spirit, soul and body. Are they seperate? Are they the same thing? Do you define them based on the original Hebrew and Greek usages? Whats the word ... etymology? (spelling?)
Do you use them in an "original" sense (your own meaning and usage) or did you come to an understanding in the way you use them from some where else?LOL! Sorry, many questions.
If I understand your question correctly...then, yes, I believe that spirit is distinct from soul. I would use the Hebrew etymology....nephesh = soul, ruach = spirit. I believe in an eternal spirit, not an eternal soul...which is why, I suppose, I have problems with "channeling" and individuals claiming the personalities of those who have "passed" into the underworld through reincarnation. I believe that the "soul" is the seat of personality and that this is not eternal. This passes away with the flesh at death. The "salvation of the soul" is therefore this worldly...it comes to those "who die before they die" and ushers in the Christ nature in this life. I also believe that the "salvation of the body" is this worldly; that our bodies are actually and literally changed by the "renewing of the mind" and in a particularly "religious" view of evolution, I believe that the 'changed bodies" of the "faithful"....evolve the body of humanity in general (our thoughts literally evolve our bodies) and All of Creation Herself. I believe that the "faithful" experience the Kingdom of God in their own flesh. Sort of a Christians view of Rupert Sheldrakes "morphogenetic fields".
Are these my thoughts? Hardly. I believe the Bible points us in this direction. But they may be a personal compilation of thought, my own sense of things, certainly...or, my own interpretation if you prefer.
lily
I, too, generally subscribe to these notions of the terms. Many writers, including Ken Wilber, would define the "soul" as the final seat of the "person's " identity, which he believes through further evolution in awareness can ultimately melt into identity with the Divine. The only question than is when does the "soul" pass away-obviously possible for such not to occur after physical death and most likely doesn't-that would leave open the possibility for some sort of communication with those still in corporeal form. don't have to be psychic to communicate either, apparently-some interesting books have been written on what is termed "after-death" communications between deceased folk and their still very much living loved ones. It seems buddhists have no better idea how to relate to such stuff than traditional christians judging from the discussionI've seen re this thing @ the buddhist forum where I hang out
Their response is to spout the standard Buddhist belief that the only permanent thing is impermanence-i.e., all changes. true but doesn't stipulate the time-line for change or the nature of that state change does it? As for doing greater things than Christ as mentioned in the Bible. i interpret that line to in part suggest that Jesus was saying that ultimately we are of the same nature as he. But alos love the story posted. buddhists speak of 2 types of "special powers," or siddhis: worldly siddhis and non-worldly. the first correspond to various supernormal abilities and the second to the rare ability of enlightened wisdom and compassion. Buddha and follwers point out that the second is really what it's all about. Take care, Earl -
Hello, Earl
As you surely know, this is a topic that resonates with me as well. I was not raised in any faith and came to Buddhism in my early twenties.
So, my background is mainly Buddhist, and my spiritual introduction to Christianity is fairly recent. I suppose it has much to do with my lack of Christian background, but I have found that much of the baggage many struggle with is simply absent.
I have had brief brushes with various Christian teachings in the past, but nothing seemed to have a voice for me back then. However, when I walked into a church two Christmases ago and began really listening to the gospel (as opposed to endless reinterpretations of the gospel), the sense that this was something with which I was already intimately familiar was overwhelming. I couldn't pretend that this teaching of Christ was not dharma. It all seemed so clearly metaphorical for that journey to no-self, no separation. I fell in love with the words and the life and the example of Christ.
So here I am... I practice two traditions. I feel both of them inspire and inform my spiritual life in important ways.
It's always been odd for me to see that so many folks can be harshly critical of such a blended practice. There's not an ounce of conflict within me anywhere.
I do love the works of the early desert fathers; some of their writings are deeply reminiscent of the words of zen masters:
"One day, some elders came to see Abba Antony. Among them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, Abba Antony suggested a text from the scriptures. Beginning with th eyoungest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave an opinion, as he was able. But to each one the old man said: "You have not understood it." Last of all, he said to Abba Joseph: "How would you explain this saying?" Joseph replied: "I do not know." Then Abba Antony said: "Indeed, Abba Joseph has found the way. For he has said, 'I do not know.'"Abba Alonius said: "If I had not destroyed myself completely, I would not have been able to rebuild and reshape myself again."A brother came to Scetis to visit Abba Moses and asked him for a word. The old man said to him: "Go, sit in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything."- excerpted from In the Heart of the Desert, John Chryssavgis
If it weren't for Meister Eckhart, my "zen nature" may have split me from christian affiliation long ago, but so many of his quotations are pure zen:
"This play has played eternally before all natures. As it is written in the Book of Wisdom, 'Prior to creatures, in the eternal now, i have played before the Father in an eternal stillness.'" For me this thread runs with the threads I posted before here re mystical christianity and one re Eckhart-where i've posted other of his sayings of a mystical nature, many of which are highly "zen flavored." DT Suzuki, one of the "importers" of zen into america even wrote a book re Eckhart & its affinity with buddhism back in late 50's. He's a very good example of the universal language of mystics. Take care, Earl
For those who'd like to read Suzuki's book re Eckhary on-line, here's the address:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mcb/mcb00.htm
Have a good one, earl
-
Hello, Earl
As you surely know, this is a topic that resonates with me as well. I was not raised in any faith and came to Buddhism in my early twenties.
So, my background is mainly Buddhist, and my spiritual introduction to Christianity is fairly recent. I suppose it has much to do with my lack of Christian background, but I have found that much of the baggage many struggle with is simply absent.
I have had brief brushes with various Christian teachings in the past, but nothing seemed to have a voice for me back then. However, when I walked into a church two Christmases ago and began really listening to the gospel (as opposed to endless reinterpretations of the gospel), the sense that this was something with which I was already intimately familiar was overwhelming. I couldn't pretend that this teaching of Christ was not dharma. It all seemed so clearly metaphorical for that journey to no-self, no separation. I fell in love with the words and the life and the example of Christ.
So here I am... I practice two traditions. I feel both of them inspire and inform my spiritual life in important ways.
It's always been odd for me to see that so many folks can be harshly critical of such a blended practice. There's not an ounce of conflict within me anywhere.
I do love the works of the early desert fathers; some of their writings are deeply reminiscent of the words of zen masters:
"One day, some elders came to see Abba Antony. Among them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, Abba Antony suggested a text from the scriptures. Beginning with th eyoungest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave an opinion, as he was able. But to each one the old man said: "You have not understood it." Last of all, he said to Abba Joseph: "How would you explain this saying?" Joseph replied: "I do not know." Then Abba Antony said: "Indeed, Abba Joseph has found the way. For he has said, 'I do not know.'"Abba Alonius said: "If I had not destroyed myself completely, I would not have been able to rebuild and reshape myself again."A brother came to Scetis to visit Abba Moses and asked him for a word. The old man said to him: "Go, sit in your cell, and your cell will teach you everything."- excerpted from In the Heart of the Desert, John Chryssavgis
If it weren't for Meister Eckhart, my "zen nature" may have split me from christian affiliation long ago, but so many of his quotations are pure zen:
"This play has played eternally before all natures. As it is written in the Book of Wisdom, 'Prior to creatures, in the eternal now, i have played before the Father in an eternal stillness.'" For me this thread runs with the threads I posted before here re mystical christianity and one re Eckhart-where i've posted other of his sayings of a mystical nature, many of which are highly "zen flavored." DT Suzuki, one of the "importers" of zen into america even wrote a book re Eckhart & its affinity with buddhism back in late 50's. He's a very good example of the universal language of mystics. Take care, Earl
-
Only book re Taoism I have is the one by Alan Watts, "Tao: the Watercourse Way."
This thread prompted me to review it again and be reminded how much Taoist thought resembled Chan/Zen Buddhism and vice versa, (supposedly introduction of Buddhism into China was falvored by pre-exisitng Taoism). Here's a quote from the book from Chuang-tzu:
"The Tao has reality and evidence, but no action and no form. It may be transmitted but cannot be received. It may be attained but cannot be seen. It exists by and through itself. It existed before heaven and earth, and indeed for all eternity. It causes the gods to be divine and the world to be produced. It is above the zenith, but not high. It is beneath the nadir, but it is not low. Though prior to heaven and earth, it is not ancient. Though older than the most ancient, it is not old."
Love the metaphor of water as re to spirituality be it Tao as "watercourse Way" or Thomas Moore's quoting Heraclitus' notion of "Panta rei-" everything flows. All good descriptors for me perhaps not so much of the Divine but of "right relationship" with the Divine.
"Whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 4:14
I think that when we "Panta rei" with the "Tao," we're in the "God" flow-simultaneously timeless and eternally flowing, motionless and moving; more attuned with the rhythms of the Divine. Take care, Earl
-
BTW, I would also NOT ever think of children as more *spiritually mature*, I think what we are talking about is more mystical experiences that are available regardless of age, intellect (even to the mentally retarded), etc.
Absolutely, hence Wilber refers to both developmental lines and peak experiences.
In A Sociable God, Wilber actually makes the important distinction between the "romantic" idea of a Fall from infancy to adulthood, and the more perennial idea of an involution, or Fall into materiality at all. By the time we're conceived, we've already "forgotten" (in the Platonic sense), i.e. we're already on our way Up. (Incidentally, this is how I interpret and apply the Christian idea of original sin.)
At the same time, and in an different way, a child's creativity certainly flows more freely before the advent of an extreme adolescent obsession with self-image. This isn't so much the "Great Fall," as it is a pitfall of the developmental process itself. Sadly, it's one that many never overcome.
Yes, when we discusuus "pre-personal" & "trans-personal," the operative term is "personal." Cognitive development and the development of a "self" structure, (implied in the term "personal") probably go hand in hand &, of course probably are unavoidable. I tend to think it si reaching the developmental phase of "personal," developing a self, which is a relatively enduring image/view of self and world, that tends to close the gate on these other froms of awarenesses. It is only as we gain or regain a more permeable self that those awarenesses can come to the fore again. Still I think there is a subtle tendency in wilber's thought to assume that insights emerging later in development are in a sense "truer" than those which come earlier. "tis the same "God" speaking, only the insturment spoken through that changes over time-kinda like first hearing the "sound of God through a harp, then later through a trumpet. Which is the "truer" sound? Have a good one, Earl
I think I'd better change my signature line to: "warning, you will need language translation to read my posts as I've long been the king of typos!
" Perhaps it might be nice to spin off a discussion thread re kid's spirituality, as my mind's been a bit busy pondering the possibilities lately. In fact, i like to play "what if" conceptual games. Wilber's view had always been one essentially of psychospiritual development or evolution, which would imply that the later development being more "complex & holonic" was a "better" development. I guess what my aforementioned metaphor as humans being literally the "instruments" of God implies is that the instrument can & does change over time, but what of the song played or the nature of the player? Does a "truer" God song get played with development of the instrument? There probably is something to be said certainly for the notion that we can "hear" & respond more coherently to God when we are not overly burdened by the "passions," (to use the terms of the early Christian church) & evolving out of that dominance would "clean up our instrument" a bit to play a purer note. The apparent innocence of childhood is eventually replaced by the "maturity" of humans having trod the world a bit & often being trod on by the world. Innocence is untested by the world. The maturing of the instrument can either result in a dead instrument or a tempering that allows for a redeemed song to go forth-pain and suffering redeemed by a maturing that results in an ability ot open our minds and hearts to allow that same song of God to resonate through the now known world of pain, limitation, suffering but with a open-eyed joy and love. The Word/song played out and in the playing redeeming both the instrument and the world within which it plays. Between the innocence of childhood and the redemption of a more transpersonal awakening, however, we tend to do the majority of our stumbling. Unfortunately, it's adults at that phase of life of peak confusion;i.e., the maturity of conventioanl ego-bound thought, that lead the church services & sunday schools that attempt to teach the kids "what it's all about," when perhaps we don't realize how much they have to teach us. Take care, EarlNot being a Bible scholar-or even much of a Bible reader-I'd never encountered this verse before until someone else brought it to my attention @ another forum:
"I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Matthew 11: 25-26
Matthew must have been on the same track-take care, Earl
-
I was just reading some of the words of modern religion writer (and ex-nun) Karen Armstrong, who wrote such books as "History of God" as well as a book about Gautama and Buddhism, and thought they were worth sharing here:
"Bad religion is the stifling of the individual's anarchistic search for transcendent meaning and absolute truth beyond ego. Good religion is the embrace of compassion and confrontation with the 'other'..."
"Religion is not about belief...Religion is about doing things that change you."
"There is a linguistic connection between the words 'myth,' 'myticism,' and 'mystery.' All are derived from the Greek verb musteion: to close the eyes or the mouth. All three words are rooted in an experience of darkness and silence. They are not popular words in the West these days."-
Just to add a few snippets from the East, some lines from the old zen poem, the Sandokai:
"The spiritual source shines clear in the light.
the branching streams flow on in the dark.
Grasping at things is surely delusion...
In light there is darkness, but don't take it as darkness.
In dark, there is light, but don't see it as light..."
Have a good one, Earl
-
The past 10 years in publishing seems to have featured a plethora of efforts at Christian-Buddhist dialogue and/or combined practice. As for me, the blending is really quite simple (or I keep it that way
). If 1 of the biggest parts to Christian spiritual practice mystical or otherwise is to overcome enslavement to the "passions," to use the early Christian terminology and keeping yourself open to the workings of God in your being and life, then practices from any religion which serve that purpose are certainly complementary in my book. buddhism with its emphasis on methods of overcoming the 3 "poisons" of clinging, aversion, and ignorance, (believing we're something we're not and thereby freezing our "selves" into dysfunctional knots) seems to fit that bill. Its ultimate aim to dismantle all false views of self and life would seem to be a heck of an apophatic approach! So whatcha think? Have a good one, Earl -
Jesus here.
I'm picking up the pace here, and moving on to something fresh and new for those of you who are interested. First, I have to apologize up front, because yesterday I told you I didn't want to give you a long, boring lecture about brain function, and that still holds true -- but there's one piece of information I absolutely must share with you, because it really is "revealed", and I hope you'll find it helpful. In other words, unlike the other topics I mentioned yesterday (like history and quantum physics), which you can look up for yourself, this is one topic you can't look up for yourself because nobody else has written it yet. This is the God Team's freebie to researchers out there. Take this ball and run with it if you see merit in it, as I hope you will. This is the missing puzzle piece, as it were. The caveat is this: the God Team would greatly appreciate it if you would try to remember where this information originally came from -- straight from the God Team.
Okay. For those of you who already have a lot of background in psychology and neurophysiology, please be patient. I'm trying to simplify.
In 1970, the psychologist Abraham Maslow, who has been called the spiritual father of humanistic psychology, proposed two basic pyramids to try to describe basic human needs. The first pyramid has five distinct tiers. At the bottom lies the tier of physiological needs. Next, safety needs. Third, belonging and love needs. Fourth, self-esteem. And last, at the peak, what Maslow called the self-actualized state, which he felt could only be achieved if all the other needs had first been met. Maslow's research showed that few people achieve the self-actualized state.
Maslow also recognized a second but equally important pyramid of human needs that consists of two tiers: first, the need for knowledge. Second, the need for understanding.
Okay. This is pretty pivotal research as far as the God Team is concerned. Although Maslow was an aetheist himself, at least he had a positive, optimistic outlook on human nature, and believed it was possible for a person to find the courage to seek self-actualization. At least he understood that human beings really do need all the things he put in his two pyramids.
Here's what he didn't know. Here's what no scientific researchers have been able to pin down. (Perhaps this will soon change?)
There are two completely different but deeply intertwined neural circuits in your biological brain. One circuit is what I will call the Darwinian circuit. The other circuit is what I will call the soul circuit.
Yup. Two completely different circuits, one relying on 3-D cues (that would be the Darwinian circuit) and the other relying on 4-D cues (that's the soul circuit). These two circuits are meant to complement each other, to mutually benefit each other, so that you might have the chance to find out, in your temporary human existence, what it feels like to combine the best of your 3-D human self with the best of your 4-D angelic self.
The Darwinian circuit is what gives you the power to taste chocolate and enjoy it, since cacao trees don't grow in the 4th dimension (though don't despair if you're a chocaholic -- there are many things even better than chocolate on the Other Side).
The soul circuit, on the other hand, is the place from which you draw the powerful emotion of gratitude, gratitude for the chance to have and enjoy the chocolate as a human.
The Darwinian circuit is God's gift to you as a soul-in-human-form. The Darwinian circuit is the stuff in your DNA that gives your brain and body the tools to physically survive, the tools to meet what Maslow calls your "physiological needs" and your "safety needs". This is all very straightforward and increasingly well researched. The Darwinian circuit is the gift from God that allows your biological brain to remember the fact that if you put your hand in a fire, it will hurt. The Darwinian circuit is the gift from God that gives you physical senses so you can try to understand the environment you live in. The Darwinian circuit can be likened to an extremely sophisticated computer program that learns from its mistakes, and builds a body of logical, intellectual knowledge to help you meet your physiological needs and your safety needs. The Darwinian circuit (if it's operating the way God intends) reminds you to wear a coat when it's really cold, reminds you to eat when your brain and body need an input of protein, fats, and carbs. But that's all it's designed to do. It's not designed to even attempt to meet your other needs -- your need for "belonging and love", and your need for "self-esteem". Those needs are governed by the soul circuit in your biological brain.
The soul circuit is the part of your brain that helps you monitor and improve your relationships, both your relationship with yourself and your relationships with others (including the God Team). The soul circuit helps you get to know other people, helps you care about other people, makes you cry when you see a Hallmark commercial. The soul circuit is a pared down version of your true 4-D self. (If we were talking in terms of electronics, the soul circuit is like a step-down transformer. It takes complex 4-D emotional energy, and translates it into 3-D biochemical energy, such as the neurotransmitter called oxytocin. Also, as a truly big hint to researchers out there, I'd took a much closer look at those glial cells that are holding the brain together. The cerebellum has a lot more in it than you realize, too. Plus the role of dopamine as a mediator between the two circuits needs to be examined. Guess at heart I'm a neurophysiologist.)
Okay. I think you'll like the next part. Take a piece of paper, and draw a Celtic cross. (If you're not sure what this is, a Celtic cross is a cross with a large circle in the middle that cuts through all four arms of the cross.) Take the left-to-right axis of the Celtic cross, and label it the "Darwinian circuit". Now, label the top-to-bottom axis the "soul circuit". So what does that give you? It gives you a circle in the centre that combines the "energy", if you will, of both the Darwinian circuit and the soul circuit. This circle of combined energy is the Christ Zone.
Your task, as a soul-in-human-form is to try to live your life somewhere inside the Christ Zone. You don't have to try to live on the eensie-teensie one-dimensional point that's dead-centre on the cross. Nobody can do that -- it just isn't possible in human form. You merely have to try to be in the Christ Zone, to try as hard as you can every day to understand what that means.
If, however, you choose to live your life on the extremes of either circuit, either totally ignoring your legitimate soul needs for "belonging and love" as well as "self esteem", or totally ignoring the legitimate biological needs of your physical body, you will be both unhealthy and unhappy.
I know. It sounds so simple, somebody must have figured out this precise equation long, long ago. Well, okay. You're not totally wrong there. I figured this out with a lot of angelic help when I lived as Jesus. Other thinkers have found it, too, but they're not as well remembered.
So where does God fit into this picture? What's in this model for you as a spiritual person who longs to feel God's love deep in your heart, so deep that you always feel God's presence? This model is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. This model is the only certain route to a life filled with balanced joys, balanced pleasures, courageous service, beautiful and sustaining friendships with others, and ultimate trust that God the Mother and God the Father bless you every day, now and always.
If you want to learn the basics of how to live in the Christ Zone, I look forward to teaching you with all the love and devotion you deserve.
Thank you.
Love Jesus
April 17, 2005
P.S. I know I didn't get back to Maslow's second pyramid of "knowledge" and "understanding". But you've probably already figured out where I'm going to go with that.
In terms of engaging the ideas presented, the business re the neurotransmitters & "God" has actually interested some researchers resulting in an area of study referred to as "neurotheology," (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology). While such stuff is somewhat interesting to me, don't really see the practical applications to a spirituality of daily living, unless, like the pharmaceutical industry, we hope via such research to come up with God pills that help us find God
I don't hold out much hope for that, though. I do suspect though that none of us here are such materialistic reductionists that we assume consciousness is simply a by-product of the brain. So, obviously if we assume some sort of brain-mind interface, it allows for the possibilities of "interfaces" of many levels or aspects of our being. Have a good one, Earl -
Yes that's the unfortunate thing re this whole J-J (Jen-Jesus) thing; that what might be worthwhile notions to ponder contained with the postings aren't going to perhaps get the pondering they deserve simply because the poster chooses to post as "Jesus." Frankly, "Jesus" if your were a "big guy upstairs" I'd have assumed you'd have known that if you wanted your message to get considered, you'd know that starting out by immediately raising others' intense skepticism re the author wouldn't be the way to go.
However, some of the discussion in this thread=the meat of it which I related to and to which I think it is worth responding is the whole notion of "spiritual authority." What leads us down the right spiritual path for each of us, (and I do believe "God" intends it to be different strokes for different folks)? I've said here before that we cannot rely only on our thinking process to assist us in this regard. Rather, i think it is largely a "heart" thing-an intuitive thing-whereby we get a sense however inchoate resounding from deep within us that a particular view or direction is "right" for us. to the degree that JJ is saying "listen to your heart," then i think she/he has a point worth pondering. Have a good one, Earl -
Well, I would say God is in the details and each moment of our lives-if we can't find God in a good scrabble game, ain't gonna find him/her in a church likely either.
As Thomas Moore said in "Soul's Religion:" "I sense a religious sensibility in all open minds and hearts." An open-hearted condition is a reliable indicator of being on the right track. anything done whole-heartedly is likely to have a "touch of God" to it. Letting go to let God is a big part of such a path & too much thinking/philosophizing is more likely to "close the hand of thought" around that heart of wisdom, (to recoin a zen phrase), than to open it. In fact, i dare say that the best theologizing is that which supports the open-hearted condition as the fruit of the spiritual path seems to ultimately come down to the open heart a'la ICor13:2 Let go, let God, and love. sounds simple doesn't it? But oh all the ways we humans can complicate that. Take care, Earl -
The whole area of channeling anything/anybody is obviously rife with controversy & quite rightly it's been pointed out re to that that it's very easy for the ego of the "channel" to end up being the true messager. While no one can definitively state where another's "messages" derive, I do think it's interesting to remember that the OT seemed chock full of "God's prophets" having conversations with God, (before there was a book series by that name). In fact, why does it seem in the NT that once Jesus was born folks stopped having direct conversations with God & had to start "going through the Jesus switchboard?" But I digress. Remember that adage: when we talk with God, it's considered prayer; when God talks with us, it's considered mental illness. In the broadest sense, I think that anytime someone preaches Jesus' gospel of love and fearlessness, they're channeling the wisdom of God through however many layers of ego that might be there-though here I'm with (was it Assissi) who said "preach the gospel always, using words only if you have to?" The greatest preaching and ministry we can do with one another is to be the gospel with one another; to be the Word made flesh. I have no problem, though, with the basic assumption of the originator of this thread: that our "soul," our deepest most essence transcends the material reality of space-time both in its origins and as to its departure when our time is up here. In fact, at another forum recently where someone posted the question, "how would your life be different if you truly believed there was no hell?" I responded that as I don't believe there's a hell, that's not an issue for me, but that it prompted a better question for me that relates to this thread: "how would your life be different if you truly believed that your ultimate origin and destination was "eternal" and that life here is but a waystation?" Never hurts to spread encouraging words of love and light in whatever form, but we have to find within ourselves our own essence of light and love if we are to reliably live it out into this world and others' encouraging words can do no more than remind us to find it. Have a good one, Earl
-
PantaRhea-I was just reading through Thomas Moore's " The Soul's Religion" again & discovered the meaning of your moniker, as contained below.
He begins his wonderful book discussing the importance of "emptiness" and says:
"Heraclitus, a mystical poet of ancient Greece, gave us the image of life as a river. 'Panta rhei,' he said-eveyhting flows or perhaps, everything rivers. To be spiritual, to have religion, is to be in the stream, empty and generous...." But spiritual emptuness is not literal nothingness. it's an attitude of nonattachment in which we resist the temptation to cling to our points of view. this kind of emptiness, confident but never certain, gives us the room to be flexible and self-aware....A final step in spiritual progress is to find the empty place, the hole in the fabric of meaning and culture through which the infinite and mysterious can enter...This kind of ignorance and emptiness doesn't lead to negative despair or nihilism; it leads to emotional security and a deep cosmic sense of life. There is something ironic and absurd about living a serious life even though we don't know the origin, the end, or the meaning of it all. Spiritual teachers often laugh at this kind of ignorance, not a laugh of scorn but of appreciation for the willingness of human beings to go no even though they don't know what it's all about."
Such is the way of the "Holy Fool." Take care, Earl
-
BTW, I would also NOT ever think of children as more *spiritually mature*, I think what we are talking about is more mystical experiences that are available regardless of age, intellect (even to the mentally retarded), etc.
Absolutely, hence Wilber refers to both developmental lines and peak experiences.
In A Sociable God, Wilber actually makes the important distinction between the "romantic" idea of a Fall from infancy to adulthood, and the more perennial idea of an involution, or Fall into materiality at all. By the time we're conceived, we've already "forgotten" (in the Platonic sense), i.e. we're already on our way Up. (Incidentally, this is how I interpret and apply the Christian idea of original sin.)
At the same time, and in an different way, a child's creativity certainly flows more freely before the advent of an extreme adolescent obsession with self-image. This isn't so much the "Great Fall," as it is a pitfall of the developmental process itself. Sadly, it's one that many never overcome.
Yes, when we discusuus "pre-personal" & "trans-personal," the operative term is "personal." Cognitive development and the development of a "self" structure, (implied in the term "personal") probably go hand in hand &, of course probably are unavoidable. I tend to think it si reaching the developmental phase of "personal," developing a self, which is a relatively enduring image/view of self and world, that tends to close the gate on these other froms of awarenesses. It is only as we gain or regain a more permeable self that those awarenesses can come to the fore again. Still I think there is a subtle tendency in wilber's thought to assume that insights emerging later in development are in a sense "truer" than those which come earlier. "tis the same "God" speaking, only the insturment spoken through that changes over time-kinda like first hearing the "sound of God through a harp, then later through a trumpet. Which is the "truer" sound? Have a good one, Earl
I think I'd better change my signature line to: "warning, you will need language translation to read my posts as I've long been the king of typos!
" Perhaps it might be nice to spin off a discussion thread re kid's spirituality, as my mind's been a bit busy pondering the possibilities lately. In fact, i like to play "what if" conceptual games. Wilber's view had always been one essentially of psychospiritual development or evolution, which would imply that the later development being more "complex & holonic" was a "better" development. I guess what my aforementioned metaphor as humans being literally the "instruments" of God implies is that the instrument can & does change over time, but what of the song played or the nature of the player? Does a "truer" God song get played with development of the instrument? There probably is something to be said certainly for the notion that we can "hear" & respond more coherently to God when we are not overly burdened by the "passions," (to use the terms of the early Christian church) & evolving out of that dominance would "clean up our instrument" a bit to play a purer note. The apparent innocence of childhood is eventually replaced by the "maturity" of humans having trod the world a bit & often being trod on by the world. Innocence is untested by the world. The maturing of the instrument can either result in a dead instrument or a tempering that allows for a redeemed song to go forth-pain and suffering redeemed by a maturing that results in an ability ot open our minds and hearts to allow that same song of God to resonate through the now known world of pain, limitation, suffering but with a open-eyed joy and love. The Word/song played out and in the playing redeeming both the instrument and the world within which it plays. Between the innocence of childhood and the redemption of a more transpersonal awakening, however, we tend to do the majority of our stumbling. Unfortunately, it's adults at that phase of life of peak confusion;i.e., the maturity of conventioanl ego-bound thought, that lead the church services & sunday schools that attempt to teach the kids "what it's all about," when perhaps we don't realize how much they have to teach us. Take care, Earl -
BTW, I would also NOT ever think of children as more *spiritually mature*, I think what we are talking about is more mystical experiences that are available regardless of age, intellect (even to the mentally retarded), etc.
Absolutely, hence Wilber refers to both developmental lines and peak experiences.
In A Sociable God, Wilber actually makes the important distinction between the "romantic" idea of a Fall from infancy to adulthood, and the more perennial idea of an involution, or Fall into materiality at all. By the time we're conceived, we've already "forgotten" (in the Platonic sense), i.e. we're already on our way Up. (Incidentally, this is how I interpret and apply the Christian idea of original sin.)
At the same time, and in an different way, a child's creativity certainly flows more freely before the advent of an extreme adolescent obsession with self-image. This isn't so much the "Great Fall," as it is a pitfall of the developmental process itself. Sadly, it's one that many never overcome.
Yes, when we discusuus "pre-personal" & "trans-personal," the operative term is "personal." Cognitive development and the development of a "self" structure, (implied in the term "personal") probably go hand in hand &, of course probably are unavoidable. I tend to think it si reaching the developmental phase of "personal," developing a self, which is a relatively enduring image/view of self and world, that tends to close the gate on these other froms of awarenesses. It is only as we gain or regain a more permeable self that those awarenesses can come to the fore again. Still I think there is a subtle tendency in wilber's thought to assume that insights emerging later in development are in a sense "truer" than those which come earlier. "tis the same "God" speaking, only the insturment spoken through that changes over time-kinda like first hearing the "sound of God through a harp, then later through a trumpet. Which is the "truer" sound? Have a good one, Earl
-
Now I'd like to add the words of a contemporary seeker, David Steindl-Rast, OSB, a wonderful contemplative thinker/writer of the Cristian tradition who is quite interreligious in outlook. I think it is het another way to examine the place of theorizing in theology and spirituality, placing it into proper context as it relates to the spiritual journey:
His response to the question, "In your moments of truth, is it ever correct to say you have the truth?"
"The key question is not one concerning objective facts "out there," but a deeply personal question addressed to the heart of each of us. The question is what is your attitude towards truth? When you think of truth, is your foremost desire to 'grasp it?' Are you convinced the truth is something one can 'have,' 'possess,' hold firmly in one's hand as it were? If the answer is more or less 'yes-'that's where your problem comes from.
Try to look at it with fresh eyes. Remember your own deepest experiences. In your moments of truth, is it ever correct to say that you have the truth? Does that truly reflect your experience? Wouldn't you rather say in those moments the truth has you? you stand under it when you truly understand. But it is not 'standing,'strictly speaking; it is a dynamic movement. St. Paul speaks of 'doing the truth in love.' That's a far cry from 'grasping.' Truth is something we discover by carrying it out. It is not a list of statements, but a direction of life. What we grasp of truth is necessarily always partial and limited. No matter how huge your hands and how firm your grip, you can only hold so much. The right inner attitude towards truth is not expressed by the grasping hand only, but by the open hand, capable of receiving what e.e.Cumings calls 'illimitable' reality...Yes, there are many given facts we have to grasp. But mere grasping of facts will lead us at best to the accumulation of knowledge. What our heart really longs for is wisdom. And wisdom is found when we not only grab and use reality, but when we let it grab us, savor it, let it speak to us and so reveal its deep meaning...There is no room here for grasping, but all the room in the world for responding."
I believe we all each of us be we young or old bring out into this world (and take back with us) a partial truth of God. I hope you use this thread & others here to share how you are responding and seeking. Have a good one, Earl
-
Hey Earl --
Thanks for starting this thread. I don't have much time at the moment, so I'll return later. Just wanted to say: I love the Christian mystical / contemplative path. I think it's the true inner essence of Christian prayer, its deep wisdom, its heart. The mystical path can be traced back to Judaism, as when the psalmist writes "Be still and know that I am God." And to Jesus, when he taught people to go in to their room, "close the door, and pray to the Father in secret, and the Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Now that I have a contemplative prayer practice, the gospels have come to life for me in a way that I never would have imagined.
What I also love about the Christian mystical path is that it gives us a point of connection and dialogue with the contemplative paths of other world religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufi Islam, etc.
Have you ever read Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism" or Wayne Teasdale's "The Mystic Heart"? Both wonderful books on mysticism (although Underhill's is long and somewhat heavy-going at times.)
I'm a budding Ken Wilber fan too.
Anyway, check you later, mystic Earl!
Peace,
curlytop
Never read their books, though heard of them. Wayne Teasdale OSB, of course, was a big advocate of what he called "interspirituality," (as am I), the search for & incorporation of complementary understandings from any & all religions. One of my favorite websites for this kind of thing is "Monastic Interreligious Dialog" & they have featured a number of pieces by & about him. I've posted a link to the list of those pieces, including an article noting similarities between Eckhart & the upanishad, (obviously I see many similarities between Eckhart & the mystical literature of many religions):
http://monasticdialog.com/au.php?id=64
Have a good one, Earl
p.s., I'm more mystified than mystic! Earl
-
Hey Earl --
Thanks for starting this thread. I don't have much time at the moment, so I'll return later. Just wanted to say: I love the Christian mystical / contemplative path. I think it's the true inner essence of Christian prayer, its deep wisdom, its heart. The mystical path can be traced back to Judaism, as when the psalmist writes "Be still and know that I am God." And to Jesus, when he taught people to go in to their room, "close the door, and pray to the Father in secret, and the Father who sees in secret will reward you."
Now that I have a contemplative prayer practice, the gospels have come to life for me in a way that I never would have imagined.
What I also love about the Christian mystical path is that it gives us a point of connection and dialogue with the contemplative paths of other world religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufi Islam, etc.
Have you ever read Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism" or Wayne Teasdale's "The Mystic Heart"? Both wonderful books on mysticism (although Underhill's is long and somewhat heavy-going at times.)
I'm a budding Ken Wilber fan too.
Anyway, check you later, mystic Earl!
Peace,
curlytop
Never read their books, though heard of them. Wayne Teasdale OSB, of course, was a big advocate of what he called "interspirituality," (as am I), the search for & incorporation of complementary understandings from any & all religions. One of my favorite websites for this kind of thing is "Monastic Interreligious Dialog" & they have featured a number of pieces by & about him. I've posted a link to the list of those pieces, including an article noting similarities between Eckhart & the upanishad, (obviously I see many similarities between Eckhart & the mystical literature of many religions):
http://monasticdialog.com/au.php?id=64
Have a good one, Earl
-
Just got done posting a link to the thought of John Scotus Eiugena @ another forum & thought some of you might be interested too. Think alot of his thought, (9th cent. Celtic Christian visionary), probably applies to the discussion of panentheism, but frankly alot of that thread is over my head & since I wasn't sure how well it fit, out it here. Maybe it's just my Celtic roots showing, but I liked it:
http://www.thoemmes.com/404.asp?404;http:/...ia/eriugena.htm
Take care, Earl
-
Alrighty, then, I'll get the ball rolling by sharing something I had at another forum re one the earliest of Christian churches-the desert father tradition-which heavily emphasized contemplative practice via a form known as hesychasm. What I posted was excerpted from an article on the tradition:
"Hesychasm is derived from the Greek meaning to be still and the hesychasts sought to know God from the act of still their bodies and minds. They spoke of two types of consciousness: what we would refer to as ego-centered and ego-transcendent. The former refer to our attachments to the senses, the intellect, and the imagination. The latter relates to detachment from those faculties. While it is traditionally spoken that the transformation from one state of mind to the other was termed 'metanoia,' the literal translation of the term is 'transformation of the nous.' Whereas the rational intellect uses deductive reasoning, the nous relies upon immediate experience or intuition. For the hesychasts to reach their ultimate goal of unio with God, they posited three steps or stages: first dispassion, (Greek-'apatheia'), involving detachment from the senses and emotion. Second, stillness, requiring detachment from the discursive intellect and imagination. Finally, deification or 'theosis,' (Greek), implying an abiding state of illumination/union with God. They described 'passions,' (intense emotions) as 'fallen' or bad when they are misdirected. Of course, their desert hermitages were one of their outer practices to assist them in the first stage of detaching from the passions. Inner practices were meant to assist the second stage. For that they utilized meditation and prayer and spoke of the four traditional levels of prayer: verbal- reading, chanting, or reciting psalms. Mental prayer- speaking words inwardly with the mind, most common being the Jesus Prayer. Sometimes they would link such silent recitation to the breath or the heartbeat or to prostrations. Third level is prayer of the heart- 'the mind should be in the heart, should guard the heart while it prays, revolve, remaining always within, and thence from the depths of the heart, offer up prayers to God.' Finally, theoria or contemplation involving the cessation of all mental activity at which point one is able to 'see God in everything.' Progress on the hesychastic path is associated with increasing degrees of agape and decreasing levels of fear."
I think it's fascinating that 1 of the earliest known versions of Christianity, (in fact the one in which it could be said that the monastic tradition started), was dedicated to more of an inner/contemplative approach than an external one. Take care, Earl
-
Just saw a post wherein Aletheia had indicated she'd hoped the "Christian hybrids" thread would continue to role and evole into an ongoing discussion of mysticism. (Could even include discussion of folks' thought on the subject like Wilber here.) So, thought, OK, why not start a thread dedicated to that. For folks wanting that, here you go-post away. Have a good one, Earl
Take care, earl
Have a good one, Earl
Do you use them in an "original" sense (your own meaning and usage) or did you come to an understanding in the way you use them from some where else?
Their response is to spout the standard Buddhist belief that the only permanent thing is impermanence-i.e., all changes. true but doesn't stipulate the time-line for change or the nature of that state change does it? As for doing greater things than Christ as mentioned in the Bible. i interpret that line to in part suggest that Jesus was saying that ultimately we are of the same nature as he. But alos love the story posted. buddhists speak of 2 types of "special powers," or siddhis: worldly siddhis and non-worldly. the first correspond to various supernormal abilities and the second to the rare ability of enlightened wisdom and compassion. Buddha and follwers point out that the second is really what it's all about. Take care, Earl
Jesus Speaking On Prayer
in General Discussion
Posted
Hi Jen. I appreciate your sharing. Hadn't heard that re her. That's sad-kind of reminds me of the Icarus myth. Sure I'm interested in all the unknowns/mysteries-who isn't? But you have a very good point re that "horse & cart" stuff. I'm of the belief that all the world's religions are essentially "this worldly," not other worldly despite their claims. That is the essence of them is to provide various means to live open-heartedly in this world. It's fundamentally relaxing into a very deep trust in the life we've been given-answering in the positive Einstein's question whether the universe is a friendly place. So I don't think that all those mystic paths are either necessary to nor necessarily will lead us to such a deeply trusting open approach to life. When it's all said and done the only thing that seems to matter is how well we've lived and loved.
Take care, earl