The Point of Jesus

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Generally (specific answer to your recent post follows):

as I find our communication rather interesting, and as it's the first time, I'm part of its present direction (on ATS), I have given the subject a deal of thought, which I (uncalled for) post now. You're ofcourse free to discontinue the communication, there'll be no hard feelings on my part then.

I'll be repeating some of what I've said earlier, but hopefully in a more understandable way.

The (basically) buddhist position is, that 'reality' is non-dualistic and non-dynamic; (these two concepts actually being two ways of expressing the same).

The pauline christianity 'reality' you seem to refer to and include, is dualistic and dynamic, something which is already manifested in the christian 'trinity' itself, through being a 'trintiy' and through its act OF creation per se. So it's not only the result, creation, which is dualistic, but also the godhead.

While Jesus and Buddha both 'point' at the same place, they do it from different positions (or perspectives if you prefer), and the paths FROM each of these positions TO the common point differ.

These paths differ not only in the doctrines associated with each of the starting-points, but also more practically in the methods chosen to walk them.

From the most superficial consideration..prayer only LOOKS like meditation.

To the inner 'mind'-mechanisms.....there's a plan/purpose/meaning with the christian 'god' and his creation, there's no such thing in non-dualism. Primitively expressed you could say, that christianity 'accept' god/creation, non-dualism ignore it. Christians strive towards an ultimate aim (even in the case of submitting your will to god's will), non-dualists only strive until they have reached the state of ultimate non-participation. Active contra passive mindsets.

The common new-age 'explanations' of existence as a school or for entertainment are exactly that, just new-age constructions not in any way part of the original non-dualistic systems; constructions meant to justify a bridge between dualism and non-dualism. It's just introducing a third set of doctrines to the existing two original ones.

If some of this interests you, there are possible finer points to look at.

Presently I'm starting to build a new house, so I can be absent for shorter periods (1-2 days).

reply to post by bogomil


Unless you have had an awakening, everything that is said is just hear say. Buddha said this, Jesus said that, this means this, this means that. Like you say all circular arguments
Until every idea and concept has been negated the truth will not be seen.
I refer to other peoples (Buddha/Jesus) writings as conformation of what is known here.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You wrote:

["Awakening is not an achievement, and it can not be taught, although there are many 'teachers'."]

That's the final conclusion of what I've been saying from the start. No 'absolutes' and no gurus. This does not mean, that the inverse is true, that all methods will do, and sometimes a teacher teaching non-teaching can be a good start. But the last 'step' we'll have to take ourselves, and it's more a 'knack' acquired through trial-and-error than anything else.

Quote: ["There are many who have awakened and speak of it,..."]

Hmmmmm, especially the speaking-about-it part, which is far more common than the actual having done it.

The next several lines in your post. Agreed, this is correct text-book information. But no offense, you don't know, what I know, so it's sensible to mention it, even if it's standard common knowledge amongst the interested. There may also be readers unfamiliar with this.

Quote: ["This is because we have invested so much importance on our minds, we think using our brains makes us intelligent, we think logic and reason rule. Because we place so much importance on our thoughts (we believe what they say), they lead us a merry dance of fear, anxiety, guilt and hope."]

Exactly the same can be said concerning emotions. They can, on their own, create their own dualism, and they can together with the intellect create a intellect-emotion dualism. This overall set of dualism can be extended to include the body also. Again there are no 'absolutes' and no absolute paths (as e.g. making emotions THE way).

Quote: [" The intelligence that is inherent in everything is also the basis of us, it is also the basis of the mind, prior to the mind."]

Where did you get that from? It's not part of any of the relatively sensible systems I'm familiar with.

Quote:["Mind can only exist within consciousness."]

Depending on system/perspective the terminology differs and express different models.

Quote: ["If we could see that the mind (with its one thought at a time)....."]

Or no thoughts at all.

Quote continued: ["....can actually be watched,"]

Who's the watcher, as you ask yourself in the coming:

Quote concerning a watcher: ["...but not a something more like not a thing."]

True. This is where it can become interesting, when we try to talk about it.

Quote: ["We are nothing."]

I believe, I recently referred to the inner-buddhistic question: Silence or 'emptiness'. There is nothing-nothing'ness, and 'something' appearing as nothing.

Quote: ["That is far to frightening for the average human,"]

Very much depending on, that some christian evangelists VERY enthusiastically hammer the point home as frightening as they can (I have several firsthand experiences of this myself).

Quote: ["You quite literally have to lose your mind to become liberated. This is why not many walk this road."]

For westerners this usually implies being slightly insane in the bargain of loosing your mind. Those used to the idea don't become so deranged.

Quote: ["The mind that thinks it is clever will not accept this, and will fight tooth and nail to survive."]

Once you have 'lost your mind', you can go back to being clever again without problems.

But where is Jesus in all this? Especially the pauline Jesus-version, who didn't teach such.

reply to post by bogomil


Forget the words, forget the explanations, nothing can describe what is going on here. It is a mystery, a fantastic mystery that can not be described. Life, aliveness, this. There are no opposites to now, to 'this', this is why the mind can not operate within it. It is what it is and it ain't what it ain't!!! Stop thought and all will be revealed. Stop interpreting the world and see it raw.
This is all that is needed, and really it is not needed, because it is already here.
Nowhere to go, nothing to find.
You are that already.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You wrote:

["Jesus said that, this means this, this means that."]

Which Jesus? Kindly remember, that I already have asked you to present any 'special' version of Jesus, you wish to refer to.

Quote: [""I refer to other peoples (Buddha/Jesus) writings as conformation of what is known here."]

As you seem to be unfamiliar with the varieties and differences in buddhist subsets (not knowing Samsara = Nirvana as one version of buddhistic interpretation), it would maybe be more practical, if you refer directly to these writings themselves, so I know, what you're talking about.

reply to post by bogomil


I don't think you will ever know what i am talking about because you have not awakened yet. I have said before that i can not describe the color red to a blind man, and you were offended by that.
I have had an awakening, prior to that i did not understand any of the scriptures, i had heard stuff from the bible etc, impossible not to in this society. The awakening happened and it blew me away (quite literally the me that i was went), a person can not be liberated, liberation is the death of the person. No person is left. All there is, is this.

reply to post by bogomil


You wrote:

["Forget the words, forget the explanations, nothing can describe what is going on here."] etc.

If it's 'ineffable', what are you doing here then?

I'll try not to sound aggressive saying this, but it looks as if you present a version of 'I'm holier-than-you'. YOU have the 'being there', and from there you preach. Actually you have no idea of where I am on this, and whether I need your preaching or not.

And you'll never know, as there are some things, I just don't talk about, PRECISELY as you said: "Forget the words" on the experience itself.

Have you read, what you wrote?

You can talk about the paraphernalia though. Theory, methods, doctrines etc.

reply to post by bogomil


When the awakening happens the truth is seen. The truth is what all these people ( i,m not going to use any names because you somehow get fixated on them, instead of seeing their message) are pointing toward. There is only one truth, so they are in fact pointing to the same thing, the truth.
It really is as obvious as the nose on your face if it is seen. Yet most are blind to it.
Have you ever seen a 3D eye picture, that looks like a blurred mess but if you look at it in a certain way it suddenly appears to be a 3D picture? You can try for hours to see it but when it is seen it is miraculous.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


If you consider yourself 'awake' and me 'un-awake', so be it.

It's not the intent of my participation here to enter such a contest. What I'm interested in, is the situation AROUND it, and in the context of the thread why you have brought such as Jesus and 'sin' into the situation around 'awakening'.

So instead of IMO pointless self-declarations of being in possession of superior truth through direct individual experience, I would rather stay with simpler reference-points such as external sources and/or examinations/conclusions on them or methods associated with thread-topic (ofcourse including this broader context we are in now).

Your 3-D allegory is fitting, but it is still an allegory. It doesn't actually prove anything, it only examplifies a category of options.

Double-posting

reply to post by Itisnowagain

I don't think you will ever know what i am talking about because you have not awakened yet.

Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. -Lao Tzu

In my opinion, if a person is actually awake, spiritually, they will find no need or reason to announce it.

reply to post by mysticnoon


Yeah, you are probably right on that, i am deluding myself. I just get a bit carried away sometimes, i enjoy talking about this stuff though. Have you ever seen Tony Parsons on youtube? I went to see him in London UK.
youtu.be...

reply to post by bogomil


You really make me laugh bogomil. You are the judge of each and every post you reply to, you deem others opinions correct or you oppose. Like you are the one who has the truth and that you are the ultimate, the absolute. You quote other people and tear them to shreds and you say i am patronizing and preaching. Have you read any of your posts?
I do not see life as a competition as you do. I am already complete. I am home. I have nothing to prove, but somehow i find myself here wanting to share, to have some sort of exchange. That's life, some sort of energy exchange.