The enlightened ones might lack aggression!

a reply to: tadaman

The other thing to consider is....maybe the ugly side is completely developed and needs to be held in check in a particular life. Exercising ugliness under the current parameters of life is not something I would dare to do. ..although at times it does show it's ugly head. But I firmly believe that no one living in the flesh can exercise judgment on another human. ..without being found in violation. We all have blinders on...

ETA.. I do think there are instances when we should intervene to prevent someone from hurting someone else. Such as when Jesus intervened to save the woman caught in adultery. And in that very example it appears that Jesus showed each one of the accusers that they were violators themselves...so that they each had to put down their stone. ..And walk away.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: tadaman

The other thing to consider is....maybe the ugly side is completely developed and needs to be held in check in a particular life. Exercising ugliness under the current parameters of life is not something I would dare to do. ..although at times it does show it's ugly head. But I firmly believe that no one living in the flesh can exercise judgment on another human. ..without being found in violation. We all have blinders on...

ETA.. I do think there are instances when we should intervene to prevent someone from hurting someone else. Such as when Jesus intervened to save the woman caught in adultery. And in that very example it appears that Jesus showed each one of the accusers that they were violators themselves...so that they each had to put down their stone. ..And walk away.

Yet, Jesus did undertake a form of aggressiveness when he overturned the tables of the money changers, but can we look at that as justified moral aggressiveness to cleanse evil from the temple? Some of the people in the temple were selling doves for their livelihood - was it unfortunate for them that they chose the wrong location?

a reply to: InTheLight

As Jesus said they had taken his father's house and turned it into a den of Thieves they were profiting in the house of worship and were impeding the poor from worshipping God by making acceptance from God appear to be connected to money/offerings. He was infuriated by their overt misrepresentation of God's character.

He could have just as easily attacked the people involved instead of the objects of their trade ..but he chose not to.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

More incomprehensible babble..

You know, that Solomon comment struck me. Solomon is never getting out of hell for controlling spirits with his ring? Well I suppose your precious Amitabha won't either then since Padmasambhava was guilty of exactly the same thing, only difference being he didn't need a ring. Hell, they even used them for the same thing, building a temple.

Just shut up for once won't ya.. you don't know what you're talking about. You're fake.

a reply to: HD3DSURROUNDSOUND

And all this time I just thought it was just Common Sense!

a reply to: DeadMoonJester

That much negative karma trying to control life not oneself? Solomon will cease to exist in the realms of becoming long before the grudges he set in motion against him will... meaning his negative intent was so negative in his extreme of thinking it positive? it became a perpetual cycle or loop of samasara itself... yet he is not mara sitting on the wheel of the lord of death his karma is... might as well be forever forming karma like that... but then what are boddhisattvas for hmm? It's how such beings become manifest as infinite... Solomon trying to play god and rule others as such? Simply damned himself into the wheel of becoming.

Some would call that the natural order of things no matter what name lay on top of it... yet freedom is freedom, hold the extreme the other end or extreme is right there behind you... call one a demon doesn't make you an angel, as those you have called a demon become the angels and you the demon... see how extremes work? So they come together in that silly attachment of extremes and chase eachother around in an endless cycle of becoming more and more attachment.

This is something I have witnessed... it is what it is. I am just sharing what I have seen... go see it for yourself, the same thing can be seen anywhere at any time subject chosen to attach to aside it is all the same.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Truly you must have been hit in the head at some point. Or you really do fancy yourself some kind of sage talking the way you do using your worthless metaphors. But it doesn't make you seem wise, it only makes you seem mentally challenged for continually doing so despite no one understanding what in the hell you are even talking about.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: InTheLight

As Jesus said they had taken his father's house and turned it into a den of Thieves they were profiting in the house of worship and were impeding the poor from worshipping God by making acceptance from God appear to be connected to money/offerings. He was infuriated by their overt misrepresentation of God's character.

He could have just as easily attacked the people involved instead of the objects of their trade ..but he chose not to.

Could not the poor worship God anywhere? Could not the poor simply have walked by the money changers? So he had no other recourse but to allow himself to become infuriated and become aggressive?

a reply to: InTheLight

Well....the short answer is....No. They couldn't worship just anywhere at that time. The whole Jewish economy at that time revolved around the sanctuary services and the different feast days and ceremonies that were all a part of the system of worship that God gave to the Israelites. The presence of God actually dwelt in the most holy place of the sanctuary maybe not at the time of Jesus but it was certainly all that the Jews knew. .. it's hard for us looking back after Jesus to put ourselves in the mindset that they had.... but they were commanded to go to Jerusalem at various times of the year and the presence of God was taught to be in the temple and rightfully so because that is how it started out and that is all they knew.

And Jesus himself did not deny this because he told the Samaritan woman at the well that the hour would come when they would neither worship him on that mountain or in Jerusalem.

That clearly implies that at that time worship was very much connected to location. it was not until after the Veil between the most holy place and the holy place was rent from top to bottom that the system of worship changed and then a New and Living Way was opened up through Christ to be able to pray directly to God from wherever.

This signified... at least in my mind...the transition between a Justice based religious system and a mercy based religious system being that the Old Testament was very much a Justice based system ( Eye for an eye ) but as the Bible says...Mercy triumphs over judgement and that is exactly what took place in the sacrifice of Christ and now the process of understanding and believing in the New system began. But many never let go of the old system.

As far as the last part of your comment it seems that you are implying that Christ was wrong to do that ?

a reply to: HarryJoy

Yes, I am implying Christ was perhaps wrong to choose aggressive behaviour over alternative ways to solve that problem of people turning some of the chambers of the temple into a market.

It appears he also made himself a whip!

And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables;

a reply to: InTheLight

And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables;

indignation

if you were to pour someones money onto the floor
to show it's just metal
life has more meaning

aggressive ? possibly
a demonstration definitely

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: InTheLight

And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables;

indignation

if you were to pour someones money onto the floor
to show it's just metal
life has more meaning

aggressive ? possibly
a demonstration definitely

Or, was it more than a demonstration, was physical violence a part of it?

And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple

a reply to: InTheLight

I guess that is something you will have to settle in your own mind.....I have no problem with Jesus taking his aggression out on inanimate objects. ..that facilitated the desecration of the temple..Jesus clearly stated to the people while holding a Roman coin...render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and unto God those things which are God's. ...they were in clear violation of that.

Don't forget the divine energy present in Jesus was unstoppable. ...simply by holding his hand up. ....those that sought to apprehend him in the Garden that night fell back as dead men....so that shows that he had no ill will toward those men that day. ....if he did we wouldn't be here talking about it. ...because I am sure he wouldn't have stopped with just them.

It is by very virtue of the fact that he withheld all judgment that he is qualified to receive that position.imo

a reply to: HarryJoy

What I have settled in my own mind at this time is that Jesus' aggressiveness was tied into his religious/spiritual agenda. Now another question remains for me, can we really define Jesus as enlightened when he preached that only one path in religion/spirituality is the true and right path for all?

a reply to: InTheLight

Well....he didn't claim to be "enlightened ". He claimed to be the son of God. And I am in no position to refute it. The Bible says that he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. That verse has very deep implications....

Yawn. Hippy talk.. The exact opposite is true.

The type of energy and confidence that is despised by the "reserved". A spiritual confide will never translate to anything but aggressive offensive to the unenlightened.

You know nothing of light. You wish to fill your mind with inverted echos and reflections?

originally posted by: ChelseaHubble
Yawn. Hippy talk.. The exact opposite is true.

The type of energy and confidence that is despised by the "reserved". A spiritual confide will never translate to anything but aggressive offensive to the unenlightened.

You know nothing of light. You wish to fill your mind with inverted echos and reflections?

a lack of assertiveness can be a symptom of pacifism, but it is not a requirement. You can be assertive and non-violent - I think such a balance is ideal.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: InTheLight

Well....he didn't claim to be "enlightened ". He claimed to be the son of God. And I am in no position to refute it. The Bible says that he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. That verse has very deep implications....

Well, if we can believe the written word, then it certainly appears he felt that the ephiphany he experienced left him wondering if he was uniquely endowed to be the Messiah and others' (less or not enlightened?) believing him divine.

Epiphany - A Christian feast celebrating the manifestation of the divine nature of Jesus to the Gentiles as represented by the Magi, traditionally observed on January 6.

During one star-filled night, deeply drawn into a silent prayer of longing, Jesus suddenly became awake to a clear, still awareness; his mind was lifted beyond itself into a pure, eternal, Consciousness. He knew himself to be one with the Mind of the universe. In that exalted awareness, there was no longer a Jesus and his God, but a one, all-pervading, Reality which had no division in it at all. He had entered what he was later to call, "the kingdom of God," and knew himself as the one Being existing in all.

He knew the unsurpassably joyful truth that he was, and had always been, the one Existence that lives in every single form on this earth, animating them all as by a magic projection of Himself onto a universal screen. He was the eternal Soul of all, appearing as all, yet beyond all, unaffected by the play of all these infinite forms.

Gone were all illusions; gone was all suffering and confusion; he was eternally present, yet eternally free, eternally unchanging and untouched by the fortunes or misfortunes of the world.

By morning, Jesus had come back to his limited self, but the knowledge of his infinite and eternal Self still flooded his mind, and he bathed in the intoxicating afterglow of that knowledge. He had been released of every delusion, fear, and source of pain that man is subject to in this world. 'Had anyone else ever experienced such a state?' he wondered.

The ancient prophets of Israel had said nothing of such an experience! Compared to what he had seen, the scriptures were like the babbling of children.

'Am I the only one to have known this incredible Truth?' he wondered; 'Dear God, am I the messenger, the Messiah, whom the people await?' Such were undoubtedly the thoughts that swirled through Jesus' mind on that day.

peterspearls.com.au...

a reply to: InTheLight

Hmmmm...I consider myself to be quite familiar with the Bible. I don't recall ever seeing any verses similar to this. Or is this just some fictitious writing by someone trying to conform the teaching of Christ to their own ideas ? They certainly took a generous helping of literary license. Since I don't believe there is a single Bible verse that says anything close to that.

And in reading the source that you quoted from...I can see that the individual twists the story even further. The author gives the impression that Jesus fulfillment of his role was something solely generated from his own mind. Anyone even reasonably familiar with the Bible realizes that there were many testimonies from others as to the divinity of Christ. Before his birth as well as during his life. ..the demons themselves testified on several occasions to the fact of his divinity.

The fact that this author would ignore many verses that contradict his fabricated story is understandable....But it certainly reveals the disingenuous intentions. If a person feels they have a superior belief system that system should be able to stand on it's own merits ....why do they have to attack and twist another belief system? It plainly tells me that they feel threatened by the other belief system....which in turn tells me that they feel that other belief system is valid or they would not be threatened by it.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: InTheLight

Hmmmm...I consider myself to be quite familiar with the Bible. I don't recall ever seeing any verses similar to this. Or is this just some fictitious writing by someone trying to conform the teaching of Christ to their own ideas ? They certainly took a generous helping of literary license. Since I don't believe there is a single Bible verse that says anything close to that.

Do you believe in the unknown years of Jesus and his travels?

What I am struggling with here is perhaps the definition of what it means to be enlightened, by those who profess to be, or for those that others profess them to be and what criteria they use to define someone as enlightened. If it is just to have had an ephiphany, then can those also call themselves enlightened?