I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I was responding to this quote:
This sounds a bit condenscending. Its okay for me but not for you…But, yes. Its your own business.
Of course it was Jesus. But he’s saying that he will enlighten them after the resurrection, when all things became clear.
No, Jesus does become part of us and we become part of him: From the catechism:
My statement stands, and is not a reflection on what it does or can mean for someone else. And it wasn’t a statement particularly pertinent to the Mass. In fact, I found it a bit insulting that you assume I have any such feelings as you imagine about the Mass. I am speaking only of my own experience. And yet, it seems that people take my own encounter with Deity as a prescription for their lives. I intend no such thing. It gives me a strong sense that very many people are on the defensive here, and are so fragile in their faith that my utter confidence in my discoveries is a threat. But no one has another’s experience. I can question why someone might believe what they do, as what people believe is as much a conundrum as many regard my understanding. I just am what I am, as are you, and I am answering your questions about my path with no agenda that you should or could be on it.
As above, it is not condescending, it is just my sincere commendation that you do what is right for you according to what you have accepted as belief. For my part, and my part only, while I was as convinced as you seem to be about your beliefs, there came a point where they were not sustainable in the form that I understood them. And according to whatever standards the priests and nuns who educated me had applied, I was rather strong and accurate in those understandings.I sure felt that way–I did much to convert folks to Catholicism. So there is nothing condescending in what I say to you.
“But (H)e is saying…”? How do you know that? What is your grounding in epistemology and other disciplines related to the understanding of how you yourself apprehend information, by what filters you asses them, and so on and so forth. Why and how is that the only possible interpretation, as you appear to insist? I guarantee you it is ordinarily or metaphysically not.
I can’t speak for others who are reading this, but I’m not in the least bit deterred by what you write here. You are exceptionally non-specific. All I have understood you to say (paraphrasing) is that you have found a way to understand God outside the Church. You have never given us any view of what that is so how could anyone be defensive about it. Indeed, I am concerned for you soul because you seem to have abandonned the true faith for something else which you won’t describe. That raises tons of red flags in my opinion. What makes you think you are hearing from God and not Satan?
So what exactly is your reason to be on Catholic Answers on this particular thread? From my perspective, what you have done is to come here, state that you have found a better alternative to find God than the Church, but have given no explanation at all about what this alternative is. It makes me think you are subconsciously asking for help…
Come on, simply read all of John 16 in context. He’s explaining that he is about to enter his passion, that they are not yet ready to hear all the details, but that the Holy spririt will shortly make it all clear to them…
Thank you for the information.
I am glad to hear that you are not deterred, Paul, because as you know, I have encouraged you in your Faith and continue to urge you to practice it to its fulfillment. As for defensive, mostly I see belief quoted, or misquoted at me. This is not about belief, except to go beyond it. And words cannot be specific about the ineffable. As for practice, I I have said before, ask constantly who it is that believes, or is concerned, or isn’t deterred, or who thinks I am hearing either from God or Satan. Then you will know where I am, relative to your God or Satan or any duality, including who you think you are.
I was a strict and devoted Catholic who learned something very much, seemingly, by accident, about who and what I am. When that happened, my understanding of what constitutes the human person radically and fundamentally changed in an instant. It is impossible for me to go back, as i would for anyoune, I have no doubt. What i arrived at was not an intellectual or faith based perception, if it can be called that. I would call it a discovery. Simply put, I can categorically say that we are not what we think we are, though we appear-due to our discursive mind-to be what we ordinarily seem. We can literally go beyond the learned mind and discover something astounding and transforming about ourselves and God. And I come here because there are a few who are in a similar or same boat I am.
No Paul, you come on. If you can’t come up with other scenarios, even if incorrect, you are not thinking, and you certainly don’t have the tools to appreciate any direct answer, as it would be inherently misleading. Do the do and we can talk soon, or in a few years. who knows.
Thanks, I needed that! You may, if necessary, call me a non dualist, or an esoteric Catholic.Well, I certainly have no idea of what you are talking abou.
Frankly, I hope not many are in your boat. Your discovery doesn’t mean much to me. Simply put what do you think you are? What was your great revelation?
You must be kidding. people can dream up all kinds of things to bend scripture too. I am happy to just follow what the church says it means.
What does that mean? What is a dualist?
If you “judge him by his fruits”, then I’d say “illusive,” or “organic”. In reference to the latter, no pun intended
I guess that is why you keep asking questions. That is very good, and goes hand in hand with your excellent continued education. The point is that if you ask yourself, as thoughts pass through your mind, “Am I this?” you can exhaust your sense of identifying with or as anything that is the contents of your awareness, while increasing your perceptive ability and internal integrity. This yields a unique epistemological position its final fruit. So this isn’t about religion, it is about something entirely different. And it is ancient. You didn’t think I was making this up, did you?
You don’t even know what it is. You may like it here, lol!
How could it yet? You haven’t done the work. But nothing happens before its time, does it.
I know what I am not
I am not this, though I appear to include it. But that is only a linguistic pointer to something that is ineffable, and taking it literally is misleading at best. In the mean time, I am what you want me to be to suit your purposes. What else could I be?
Then you may not find out what it means.
You, acting on the presuppositions of the structures of English and the consensus convention that we are subject/object awareness creatures only, are, as well as the vast majority of people, a dualist.
So this is all about you thinking about who you are or who you are not? Self awareness?I guess that is why you keep asking questions. That is very good, and goes hand in hand with your excellent continued education. The point is that if you ask yourself, as thoughts pass through your mind, “Am I this?” you can exhaust your sense of identifying with or as anything that is the contents of your awareness, while increasing your perceptive ability and internal integrity. This yields a unique epistemological position its final fruit. So this isn’t about religion, it is about something entirely different. And it is ancient. You didn’t think I was making this up, did you?
You don’t even know what it is. You may like it here, lol! How could it yet? You haven’t done the work. But nothing happens before its time, does it. I know what I am notI am not this, though I appear to include it. But that is only a linguistic pointer to something that is ineffable, and taking it literally is misleading at best. In the mean time, I am what you want me to be to suit your purposes. What else could I be?Then you may not find out what it means.You, acting on the presuppositions of the structures of English and the consensus convention that we are subject/object awareness creatures only, are, as well as the vast majority of people, a dualist.
That depends on what you might mean by “Self awareness.” I’m guessing we see it differently, but perhaps not.
I find it curious that you spend so much time thinking about yourself. Its a bit counter to Catholic Thought, after all. As I see it, God made us all for a specific purpose, which is to help others unceasingly. Only by Giving, can we truly recieve. . My daily prayer is that I learn how to love more fully, which is to do things for others without expecting anything in return… Do you see it differently?
As I was rather sure, your perception of self inquiry is about a polar opposite of what it can and is meant to be,and how I experience it. You might be far closer if you thought of it as a deeper level of the examination of conscience. Or it might be thought of as the fulfillment of the vow of poverty. If I read it correctly, your statement conflates personality and dispassionate self awareness as a factor of agency.
) of my personality. Lord, how boring is that? God is infinitely more absorbing.please define “discreet entities”. or did you mean “distinct” entities?
What does this mean? “conflates personality and dispassionate self awareness as a factor of agency”? Who talks like that ?
You don’t see people as discreet entities? I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding. Every person is a individual with his own will. We are not part of a collective like the Borg.
I think you are missing the very simple fact that God is love. He does everything for everyone without getting anything in return. We are to emulate that. Just contemplate that.Also, the way you have it stated it almost sounds as if you have purpose and method as the same. This is so, but only at a level where the kinds of distinctions you are making are perceived somewhat differently. but please be assured, I am not a self absorbed navel gazer concerned about the wonders (or is that blunders?
this link goes to a 404; I’ll assume it is the same or a similar one about which I answered in post 126 addressed to you. I’m sorry if you missed it.
You read it here. I do. Guilty as charged
Me and many of my friends. For ages. Not the same words, but the same idea. We are rather consistent, even if we don’t know each other through time or space. This is not about learning something from a book or flights of imagination.Of course we appear that way to one another through the senses. But this is not, as you can find out, not the ultimate functioning reality of the human. And since epistemology is pretty much poo-poohed in our society, to the point where what I’m talking about isn’t even intelligible to most, this understanding is a very unusual, albeit actual position from which the nature of the mind can be discerned. And you may note, Paul, that most of the people around us think about well enough to get to work and back without breaking a limb. But they do not have a working knowledge of what they are using to think with. And that is my point here. We need to know what we are thinking with, before any of our conclusions have any validity, and beyond that, Truth.
Well, I’ve got to be pretty dense then, Paul, because that is what takes up a lot of each of my days. It is something I try to consider even when doing “other” things. Thanks for the sage advice.
I did benefit much from both of those, as you and others I chat with seem to continually forget. As I have said, mine is a deliberate choice made solely/soul-ly for myself on terms I found to be necessary for my spiritual well being. Mine, not yours, or anyone’s. But again thanks. You are clearly a good, kind, and thoughtful person.
Oh, thanks, I missed your reply.
It is an excellent site, among many others. But it is not Ramana himself speaking, and is mostly a reflection of his students, except for the quotes. If you are actually interested, I can message you some titles that are recorded conversations, lectures, or books, many by English speaks, some women, who are very clear in what this is about. If you are only casually curious, don’t bother. That is why, although I will answer questions, I am somewhat obscure about them. There is no use giving intellectual information about something that is primarily experiential, even though it is as close to the repeat ability requirement of science as possible in terms of interior experience. If I say something in terms of a “definition,” You might think you understand the referent and would be misled.