Tolle 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter One
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jewells17, I “totally” read the CANA website. I am very happy for Marcia and her return to her church. Given the complete moosh-mash of things she got into, it is no wonder that she felt relief in a church. That is where, IMO, most people rightfully belong.

But it ought to be noted as well, that what she is talking about and what One, myself and others are pointing to in the works of Tolle and some few others, has littel to do not only with the unfortunate misunderstandings that Marcia had of many things, but nothing to do with "new Age"ism whatsoever. As I have stated before, what almost everyone one here takes as new age stuff is a corruption of actual Teaching that is organized and heirarchical in nature, precisely to avoid the kind of experience that Marcia unfortunately had.

Unfortunately, people who have such abilities and insights as Marcia fall into groups that are founded on bits and pieces of something far far greater. I know from having lived in and around Berkely California and San Francisco when New Ageism was peaking, that anyone who thought they saw a color around someon or had had an OBE could and often did hang out a shingle advertising themselves as the source of all importanf knowledge. I never saw so many misguided souls ignoring bits of gold because they were awash in opaque mud.

So thanks for the info, Jewells, but we are looking at something rather different.
 
~
If we are to quote the people that we tend to admire, let’s be sure to get it right.

Although there are some translations that suggest St. Thomas Aquinas voiced his experience as you have quoted – possibly phrased that way so that it wouldn’t offend the pious – the majority of sources cite Aquinas as actually saying the following:

I can no longer write, for God has given me such glorious knowledge that all contained in my works are as straw - barely fit to absorb the holy wonders that fall in a stable." (Shortly after that statement, he died.)

What should we infer from that proper quote? Really think about it for a minute (rather, many hours) to understand the implications, rather than doing as most people might do, which is just thinking that it’s some cool, pithy quote.
You know what popped in my mind when I read that? Jesus being born in a manger. The straw on the ground being barely fit to absorb the wonder of Christ. I don’t think he meant that his work was worthless. He meant “my words cannot replace the Word.”
Considering all that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, and despite the depth of intelligence, understanding and piety that he brought to his writing process, compared to his divine revelation of actual and authentic TRUTH he considered that his words and ideas were not even worthy of catching and absorbing the droppings of a horse, by his own admission.
But we should look deeper into what this really means, and what it means for each of us.
“Be still and know.” “Kill the Buddha.” “I am That I Am.” “…barely fit to absorb….” All such expressions tell us not to listen to others, no matter who they are, but to find out the Truth for oneself. That’s the only way that Truth can be realized. It can happen no other way. No belief is true. No thought is truth. Nothing that I say, nothing that Aquinas said, nothing that Jesus said, nothing that you say, nothing that anyone can say, is True.
How can someone find out the Truth for themselves if nothing they believe, think or receive from others can be Truth? The other option might be that the Truth is objective and certain beliefs, thoughts and information conform to that Truth and others don’t. IMO, this makes more sense to me because the Truth (being what it is) would be the same for all people and could be distinguished from that which is false.
So, to be honest, I don’t give much of a fat rat’s butt about discussing the relative viewpoints of Thomas Merton, or St. Thomas Aquinas, or Eckhart Tolle, or Meister Eckhart, or Jesus, or Shakyamuni Buddha, or the prophet Mohammed, or Shankara, or the hundreds upon hundreds of other saints, sages, whackos, pundits, pandits, fundamentalists, charlatans, gurus, or supposedly enlightened beings. None has anything to do with salvation, enlightenment, or Truth realization if we don’t look for ourselves. All are mere fingers pointing at the moon, and yet we spend our lives worshiping the finger, and this seems to be the case for the words of Jesus (especially) as it is for for anyone else’s words. Was that not what Aquinas was pointing toward, and yet we continue to talk about his finger! Ridiculous.
I’d like to talk about the premise behind what you are saying. The difference between orthodox Christianity and gnosticism is that the gnostic believes that a person must have an experience in order to be saved. The problem is that no one can ever verify this experience outside of the person who has it. And in order to have that experience the person must work to get it.

Orthodox Christianity starts with faith. Let’s say that you and I both believe the same creed. And by our faith in that creed we are saved. Now we have a verifiable way of determining if a person is saved or not. This is not to say that spiritual experiences before and after are without value in knowing God. But whether a person does or does not have those experiences is not the deciding factor in salvation. And why should it be?

This is what has been lost in this age. The understanding that religion is the foundation for the esoteric.
Serious people can’t stand the lie of pretending that the black sea isn’t shoreless, or that the darkness isn’t absolute, or that death isn’t just a breath away. The urge to attach to beliefs is the survival instinct; the urge not to drown, not to sink into the blackness.
If you are sinking down into blackness, what makes you think you found the Truth?
We’re all treading water in that vast, black, endless sea. We gather together into groups to convince ourself that our situation is other than what it is. You sense yourself spinning off into oblivion, and we’re clawing desperately to grab ahold of something. If someone else on some other raft comes close to our raft, we beat them back with the oars of righteousness, all while yelling that our belief will somehow save us from the one and only thing that surely awaits us all.
Virtually all beings are avoiding looking at the one thing that is True.
Tread water, brothers and sisters. Gather together into groups. It has nothing much to do with Truth. (Actually, it does, at the highest levels, but the vast majority of people are getting it wrong.)
~
I agree that anyone who seeks Truth should contemplate their own death. But anyone who has found Truth knows that there is something beyond the abyss. So, therefore, the belief in life after death is a confirmation of Truth and not born in fear of it. This confirmation brings meaning to this life. What meaning does your conclusion bring? Everything is falsehood, all of our thoughts and actions are pointless… it’s all just an illusion. Well, then, why are we hear in the first place? Why bother living? Might as well get on with the Truth, which you believe is death. Sounds pretty nihilistic. I hope you would consider that you were born for something more than just dying.
 
B]A Great AMEN Convert66 !!!

from the poorest, laziest eclectic former NewAger I’ve ever known !!! 😉

“…once was lost, but now am found…” by Our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ…

who BTW, many ‘free-thinker-philosophers’ (?) see as a bit of a ‘limitation’… I am reminded of the ‘brilliant’ rants of Dawkins. He seems like a likeable and friendly chap, but such a dedicated atheist, err agnostic. A shame really !!!

I know I’ve said I’m done with this thread, but it still offers so much opportunity to witness.

Live Jesus in our Hearts, FOREVER.

😃
 
You know what popped in my mind when I read that? Jesus being born in a manger. The straw on the ground being barely fit to absorb the wonder of Christ. I don’t think he meant that his work was worthless. He meant “my words cannot replace the Word.”
I have to agree with One in this case.
I’ve come across far to many cases of great spiritual people saying similar things about their earlier beliefs to think otherwise.

How can someone find out the Truth for themselves if nothing they believe, think or receive from others can be Truth? The other option might be that the Truth is objective and certain beliefs, thoughts and information conform to that Truth and others don’t. IMO, this makes more sense to me because the Truth (being what it is) would be the same for all people and could be distinguished from that which is false.
Words are mere symbols. They are not the substance of what they attempt to represent.
The textual statements that comprise religious beliefs are mere symbols. They are not Truth itself.

To confuse a statement of belief with the Truth it very poorly attempts to express is nothing short of idolatry.

I’d like to talk about the premise behind what you are saying. The difference between orthodox Christianity and gnosticism is that the gnostic believes that a person must have an experience in order to be saved. The problem is that no one can ever verify this experience outside of the person who has it. And in order to have that experience the person must work to get it.

Orthodox Christianity starts with faith. Let’s say that you and I both believe the same creed. And by our faith in that creed we are saved. Now we have a verifiable way of determining if a person is saved or not.
How can you possibly claim this? Loyalty to one or more belief statements determines absolutely nothing.

This is not to say that spiritual experiences before and after are without value in knowing God. But whether a person does or does not have those experiences is not the deciding factor in salvation. And why should it be?
Well, if you have a spiritual experience, you know you have (or had) that particular spiritual experience. No more and no less.
If you have no spiritual experiences you’re stuck with belief - which really means nothing.
You find out after you die what your spiritual state/status is - a bit late, I would think.

This is what has been lost in this age. The understanding that religion is the foundation for the esoteric.
It can be in potential, but by no means is religion a guaranteed foundation for the esoteric.
Especially when the form of religion is worshipped instead of using it as a tool to get to substance - again it easily degenerates into idolatry of ideas.

If you are sinking down into blackness, what makes you think you found the Truth?
Here the problem of words and cultural associations comes up again.

Outside the earth’s atmosphere, infinite space is black.
The points of light - stars - are intensely hot balls of fire - Hell perhaps?

I agree that anyone who seeks Truth should contemplate their own death. But anyone who has found Truth knows that there is something beyond the abyss.
Why do you call the state post this infinitesimally short life on earth “the abyss”?

So, therefore, the belief in life after death is a confirmation of Truth and not born in fear of it. This confirmation brings meaning to this life. What meaning does your conclusion bring? Everything is falsehood, all of our thoughts and actions are pointless… it’s all just an illusion.
I’ve seen some great films - I know they are all illusions - I know they are in a sense falsehoods - but none the less … they are not automatically pointless because of that.

Well, then, why are we hear in the first place? Why bother living? Might as well get on with the Truth, which you believe is death. Sounds pretty nihilistic. I hope you would consider that you were born for something more than just dying.
If these are the conclusions you come to from considering the concepts that One has expressed, then definitely that path is not for you.
Stick with loyalty to beliefs and trust that the post death reward you’ve been promised by your earthly, human spiritual guides actually pans out.
 
Anon5216,

Permit me my 2cents…

As I stated in a previous post, I was away from Holy Mother Church (Catholicism) for almost 2 decades and I did not leave it due some deep, intellectually held belief, but apostatised for some ‘nice’ 6th & 9th Commandment dabblings, and in my rebellion, though I too had some profound ideas, alas, due to my ‘eclectic laziness,’ I gave it ‘short shrift’ (read: I perceived that initial ‘epiphany’ (insight), & probably the ‘tokes took it’s toll’ (no pun intended) so I just dulled myself into a comfortable ‘oblivion & far out wonderment…’ AND THAT WAS IT !!!

Your explanations perhaps belie a more intellectualised position of ‘otherness’ (rebellion?) re: the Catholic Church ???

I know this is unsolicited advice, and I trust you’ll take this in the spirit that it is shared,…
I’ve been THERE (rebelled, apostatised, left Holy Mother Church), and done THAT (despite my ‘un-Catholicness,’ I naively even thought that my journey/search was unique and authentic, I said to myself that I believed in and loved God, … Jesus is a loving God, …and that it should count for something, a.k.a. “I will not be condemned to damnation”), and in retrospect, I am glad I did not have any ‘transcendental’ talent with scholarly dialogue & words, I sure was no thinking ‘guru’ type of any sort or I’d’ve wallowed in my centred ego-self philosophy and took others with me to that nebulous ‘cosmic void’ of utterly imprecise conscious streams of thought (pitiful juxtaposition of words, isn’t it, … yech!)
Why I couldn’t even ponder Sartre’s “No Exit” 'cause I was so freaked out !!! Who was that ‘avatar’ who said “Argue for your limitations and they’re yours” ??? Oh yeah, I did that good, and I do that now so that in case some ‘similar soul’ might be listening in,…

… here is an account of some poor sod who after 18 years, stumbled his way back to Church, came home, crying out “where have you been all my life …???” found the most personal relationship with Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, AMEN & ALLELUIA.
 
Considering my family situation right now, I wonder why I’m being drawn back into a response… I thought I was done, here. Oh, well.
I don’t think he meant that his work was worthless. He meant “my words cannot replace the Word.”
Isn’t that what we’re saying? 🤷

I suppose that Aquinas’ words, like all good art, could be evaluated only from the subjective point of view, but since we tend to gather together into intersubjective agreement on such things, I would join Anon and disagree with your interpretation that he was referring to Jesus.

What Aquinas meant, by most accounts, is that though he spent his life writing, when faced with his divine revelations of God, everything he wrote, everything he tried to express, everything he tried to codify was trivial in the face of such knowledge and awareness. And yet, he saw the holiness in all things, including horse manure. [edited]
How can someone find out the Truth for themselves if nothing they believe, think or receive from others can be Truth?
Language constructs are only pointers to the objects or concepts that they represent. Again, being symbols, they are not Truth itself. Truth cannot be conveyed by words, which was Aquinas’ problem; which is why Jesus was silent before Pontius Pilate; and, generally, why there is so much spiritual confusion! No one can use symbolic, dualistic language to convey the nature of unified, undivided, nondual Truth.

Don’t feel badly; this has always been the problem, both in the past and right this second. It’s why Jesus was so misunderstood (or, at least one of the reasons.)

So, for those who are in a position to need religious belief for their apprehension of Truth, then religion brings them much of the way toward – how are we referring to it now? – the esoteric, but it’s not ‘all the way home.’ This is best evidenced by what we see as the notion of ‘life after death’, where you only get your reward in the hereafter, even though Jesus promised the possibility of heaven on Earth.

For other people who see through the problems of belief, the search for Truth is a process of negation. As ancient sages used to say, “neti, neti” – “not this, not that.” This search for Truth requires setting aside all ideas, concepts, beliefs, and falsehoods, stripping everything away until all that is left is direct realization of Truth, unsullied by any dualistic pointers that can only lead away from Truth.

After the point of realization, ideas, concepts, and other forms of ‘everyday life’ will arise again, but they are seen for what they are.
The problem is that no one can ever verify this experience outside of the person who has it.
Oh, sure you can. All you have to do is ask, “Hey, was your experience like mine?”

While this does not constitute objective, empirical, third-person verification by an external observer, we often rely on inter-subjective comparisons of subjective experiences in order to verify experience.

I could extend your argument right back to your religious beliefs: Even if you’re Catholic and not Gnostic, how can you possibly verify your beliefs outside yourself unless you compare them to people who share those beliefs, or have those experiences? This is why science and religion clash – science cannot verify the internal experiences of a subject any more than it can verify the nature of transcendental experiences. Science can identify correlates – brain waves, chemical activity, etc. – but science cannot quantify the experience itself. And yet, those experiences are so real to the subject that the shortcomings of science are dismissed.

The Truth that is being pointed to can only be experienced directly, without the obfuscation of words and belief. Belief can get you to the gate, and can support your search, but you yourself have to enter ‘naked’, like the child.
And in order to have that experience the person must work to get it.
Beats waitin’ around 'till I’m dead in order to find out. 🙂
Orthodox Christianity starts with faith. Let’s say that you and I both believe the same creed. And by our faith in that creed we are saved.
You think. That is what you believe.
Now we have a verifiable way of determining if a person is saved or not.
No, you don’t. That’s what you believe, and does not constitute Truth.
This is not to say that spiritual experiences before and after are without value in knowing God. But whether a person does or does not have those experiences is not the deciding factor in salvation.
Any sort of spiritual experience is simply an experience. Like all things impermanent, these experiences come and then go. The meaning that it holds for a person is based entirely on their background, conditioning, and belief system. If you and other people had experiences that seemed identical, the relating of those experiences would still be steeped in conditioning. One person would report, say, seeing Jesus. The others might report seeing Krishna, or Mohammed, or any number of other deity figures throughout history. Same quality of experience, different interpretations, none of them being Truth… it’s just an experience, with an interpretation taken too far.
This is what has been lost in this age. The understanding that religion is the foundation for the esoteric.
While many would agree that this has been lost, I don’t hold that opinion. I think that religion IS the foundation for the esoteric (and I know that Detales agrees with this wholeheartedly.) Religion can take us to Truth, to the transcendental experience of experiencing at-onement with God, but sadly, most religions take you only partway there, and then keep you partway there.

Religion, at its best, should be a ‘conveyor belt’ for moving people through advancing stages of realization and understanding, teaching you what you need to know, asking the questions that will get you to open the next door in your unfoldment, and then sending you on your way through the next gate. And this can continue from a very low, fundamental level, all the way up the ladder to Truth realization.

To say that most organized religion has failed in this task is an understatement. It is more obvious that religions are organized in order to keep people at one level of understanding, and they do not encourage moving on from that level of belief, as we can see so clearly even here in the fora.
If you are sinking down into blackness, what makes you think you found the Truth?
The “blackness” is metaphorical. It’s the notion that you need to let go of everything to find Truth, with no safety net, no raft. Even Jesus said you must leave your family behind… everything you hold dear.

See the problem with language?
 
Authenticity~~“This is what has been lost in this age. The understanding that religion is the foundation for the esoteric.

One~~“While many would agree that this has been lost, I don’t hold that opinion. I think that religion IS the foundation for the esoteric (and I know that Detales agrees with this wholeheartedly.) Religion can take us to Truth, to the transcendental experience of experiencing at-onement with God, but sadly, most religions take you only partway there, and then keep you partway there.

I think I might surprise One in this instance, though normally we are in complete agreement. I do very much agree with the last part of his statement. As to the first part, yes and no. It may be foundational, and maybe this is what you guys mean, as a preparation or a preliminary mental step to the esoteric. But in actual order of appearance, as far as I am concerned, religious systems are deteriorations of original Revelations that may be necessary in order to keep the focus of those not yet completely ready on the goal.

I don’t know if anyone on here is familiar with A. Korzybski’s “structural differential.” It is a model used for visualizing how ideas are abstracted from a plenum, or from the Universe. You can read more about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_differential#The_model and here: visualstatistics.net/East-West/Structural%20Differential/Structural%20DIfferential.htm

At any rate, a revelation such as St. Thomas’ might be called a first order abstraction. Experientially, in the case of this kind of interior experience, the plenum, or Universe, is known from the inside, and as Merrell-Wolff described in his work, is called “Knowledge by Identity.” The “K” is capitalized to differentiate K/I from intellectual knowledge. As One might say, it is UL quadrant Knowledge, as distinct from UR quadrant knowledge. It deals with meanings, not with appearances. It is accessible to others by interpretation, not by observation, though this is somewhat modified by the dictum that “Actions speak louder than words.” However, it is in this interpretation that there may be difficulties. The entire process is delineated by Gina Cerminara in a chapter showing the formation of a hypothetical religion called Azeeism. Brilliant.

What pertains to this conversation, though, is that most listeners, not having the same interior referent as the original revelator, in this case St. Thomas, interpret his words in terms of ordinary subject/object awareness. This s/o mode of “normal” human interaction is the veil between this and THAT. So someone who has experienced THAT will hear not only Aquinas, but Jesus, Sankara, Mills, Katie, Tolle, Nisargadatta, Wilbur, Ramana, Robeson, et al, with entirely different ears. It is vaguely similar to three people talking about China, or Congo, or some such. If two have “been there, done that,” they are conversing on an entirely different level than the level they are interacting with in the case of the one who has not been where they have been.

Those two are sharing symbols directly referent to Identify experience with the plenum. The third party is abstracting from verbiage pointing to the plenum. His knowledge is second hand. It might intellectually give him an accurate logical picture or map of China. It might lead him there and he can use it to navigate there if the words listened to were adequately referenced. If not, there may be trouble, and that person might be better off going with someone experienced as a guide. Or not going.

This is why there is such mistaken understanding of the relationship of genuine Teachers with their students. Those genuine Teachers are Guides. They are not imparters of faith or of intellectual knowledge, or of Scriptures, as are clergy. They are the exterior conscience of one who mistakes this for THAT. Neti neti is such a simple statement, but it is as well the key to Fort Knox, if you will. Just because you haven’t been there, or have and never got in the door, doesn’t mean that the Gold is not present. It means that you did not knock hard enough. “Gnothi Seauton!”
 
It’s not that we disagree, Detales. We’re just looking at it slightly differently.

My statement is meant to imply, “… that is what religion should be.” Sadly, as we both know, it is not, and falls far short of what it could be doing for people.

Best
R
 
Cool. I kind of thought as much, but wanted to make a point. How slefish of me! 😃

Great post, BTW.
 
"* And by our faith in that creed we are saved." I have “faith” that that mirage is water. Will it save me? Gee. It sure looks *real…

Now we have a verifiable way of determining if a person is saved or not.” Which is the mirage? Remember, religion and faith are contents in s/o awareness. They are not substance. Read on

But whether a person does or does not have those experiences is not the deciding factor in salvation. And why should it be?” Because the nature of those experiences are existential proof of other modes of awareness that are pertinent to understanding Teaching as distinct from dogma, tenets, tradition, or faith. It is the lab portion, one might say, of the course. Lectures “sola” are insufficient.

What meaning does your conclusion bring? Everything is falsehood, all of our thoughts and actions are pointless… it’s all just an illusion.” That exactly is the point. When one can see how it is an illusion, it points to the Nature of Self*, Substance, Soul, or of God. This is experiencible and practical. Faith only gives the intellect and emotions stuff to move around. Kknowledge reveals the Nature f the Space it moves around in. The stuff you move is dependent on the Immovable Space that contains and sustains it. This is why we constantly inquire about the sense of “I.” Eventually we come to understand that the “I” of me is distinct from the “me” of this experience. The “me” is person, an extraordinary gift for navigation in these dimensions called Earth or the World.

But we are multi-dimensional creatures. Our Home is not of this world. We can know that directly. We don’t have to just believe it is something that will happen to us. As Franklin Jones said, “This is always already the “other” world.” It is true, Angel.
 
Oh no…we are looking at the same thing and you are either in denial or truly do not have the eyes to see. It is all about the “so called ascended masters” which is a smoke screen for the counterfiet. Check out www.crossveil.org also…great resource.
 
I see that Jewells’ mantra is “when in doubt, provide another link.” Really Jewells, why would you come to a discussion forum if all you can do is advertise? Provide your own synopsis or offer your own opinion (and reasons for the opinion). Don’t let others speak for you, or people like me will have to assume you don’t understand what you’re presenting.
 
Hi Jewells,

Well, I scanned most of that one, and read the part thoroughly about discernment vs blindness, and Catholic worldview vs. new age. Same for the article on The New Age Sin of Denial. No. Really. We are NOT talking about the same thing. I also noted that there is a good deal of disinformation posted there. Please be careful. Thank you for your concern.
 
Cool. I kind of thought as much, but wanted to make a point. How slefish of me! 😃

Great post, BTW.
Thanks, and we can still hold varying opinions on whether or not religion is a foundation for ‘esoteric’ awareness. While I believe that organized religion serves a very important role, providing structure, guidance, hope, and community (and other benefits) for those who have a need for such, it should also propel people forward into wider and deeper realms of understanding. To do this, certain gates must be passed as we increase our level of consciousness regarding these things, but then at some point, a serious person must leave these structures behind – and should be encouraged to do so! – and do the hard work of peeling away those false notions in order to have a firsthand experience of the Truth.

I completely agree with you that religion, as it is today and has been in the past, fails miserably at this. It’s largely due to the people who have bastardized the original insights that provide the basis for religion. Interesting, isn’t it?

There is one, simple solution to this problem (and so much more could be said about it.) If the leaders of churches and sects could open their understanding to deeper and wider realms of realization, then they too would see the vast landscape that they’ve been traveling, and would be in a much better position to lead their flock into that expanded territory, pulling everyone up in the process.

But instead, we see people retreating into limited, conservative, archaic belief systems that do not take into account any other possibilities other than what they can currently see. Walls and dividers are thrown up in an attempt to either sway people to their mode of belief, or to attack others for having the sheer audacity not to believe as they do. This is, of course, the source of so many ills that we’ve witnessed over the centuries, from Inquisitions, to Crusades, to personal affronts, the fight for the Holy Lands, to the current war on Islam, to discussions on CAF. (And I’m sure I’m leaving out a lot of other bits of history.)

So, overall, I believe that religion could be the catalyst for true growth, but is not, and yet it can change. A truly Integral Spirituality would address this nicely, and even if it wouldn’t likely change things overnight, could surely move us in a better direction, and that would only yield more peace in the world…

… and what could be wrong about that?
 
Rob, I know what it’s like to have a family member in ICU, I went through that not too long ago. Consider you and your family added to my daily rosary.
 
You know what popped in my mind when I read that? Jesus being born in a manger. The straw on the ground being barely fit to absorb the wonder of Christ. I don’t think he meant that his work was worthless. He meant “my words cannot replace the Word.”

How can someone find out the Truth for themselves if nothing they believe, think or receive from others can be Truth? The other option might be that the Truth is objective and certain beliefs, thoughts and information conform to that Truth and others don’t. IMO, this makes more sense to me because the Truth (being what it is) would be the same for all people and could be distinguished from that which is false.

I’d like to talk about the premise behind what you are saying. The difference between orthodox Christianity and gnosticism is that the gnostic believes that a person must have an experience in order to be saved. The problem is that no one can ever verify this experience outside of the person who has it. And in order to have that experience the person must work to get it.

Orthodox Christianity starts with faith. Let’s say that you and I both believe the same creed. And by our faith in that creed we are saved. Now we have a verifiable way of determining if a person is saved or not. This is not to say that spiritual experiences before and after are without value in knowing God. But whether a person does or does not have those experiences is not the deciding factor in salvation. And why should it be?

This is what has been lost in this age. The understanding that religion is the foundation for the esoteric.

If you are sinking down into blackness, what makes you think you found the Truth?

I agree that anyone who seeks Truth should contemplate their own death. But anyone who has found Truth knows that there is something beyond the abyss. So, therefore, the belief in life after death is a confirmation of Truth and not born in fear of it. This confirmation brings meaning to this life. What meaning does your conclusion bring? Everything is falsehood, all of our thoughts and actions are pointless… it’s all just an illusion. Well, then, why are we hear in the first place? Why bother living? Might as well get on with the Truth, which you believe is death. Sounds pretty nihilistic. I hope you would consider that you were born for something more than just dying.
 
One~~“There is one, simple solution to this problem (and so much more could be said about it.) If the leaders of churches and sects could open their understanding to deeper and wider realms of realization, then they too would see the vast landscape that they’ve been traveling, and would be in a much better position to lead their flock into that expanded territory, pulling everyone up in the process

Yes, I agree. Only, in a way, that is like expecting most teachers in our school systems to be superb at their calling. One of the websites posted by Jewells had an example of what I mean. The author of the article The New Age Sin of Denial encountered a priest who had some jargon and half-baked ides, well intentioned I’m sure, but the whole thing came of very badly. I was very embarrassed for the priest. And sorry for he author, as he was not only dis-informed, he had no genuine encounter to provide him with a clear direction. As we say, this is not for everybody.

Though superficially mechanistic, I like your idea of the conveyor belt. How do we convey experience? I do not know any other way than incitement by example. Exposing someone to ideas with books and posts might get curiosity up, but I am reminded of one of our favorites, Walt Whitman. He said that “I and mine teach not by discourse or argument, but by Presence.”

But nevertheless, it ought to be known that there is an esoteric side to religion. In fact, in Basic Self Knowledge, Harry Benjamin claims that the method of self inquiry is the esoteric facet of Christianity. The prefatory material may be read at amazon.com/Basic-Self-Knowledge-Harry-Benjamin/dp/0877281629# Had this been part of common Catholic understanding, or of that of any other religion, I would have been saved years of adjustment and would have not lost the respect for the Church that after thirty years I have somewhat regained, at least as a matter of familial care.

But few are aware of the ascending and descending aspects of faith and knowledge, or even of the variety of modes of worship. Most faith is habitual, rote, and of the cradle variety. There is not much insight in that beyond what can be gleaned from the hard knocks necessary then in any faith, Better to have some conveyor system that accommodates growth and nurtures each level of insight as you suggest.
 
I have to agree with One in this case.
I’ve come across far to many cases of great spiritual people saying similar things about their earlier beliefs to think otherwise.
Considering what St. Thomas wrote, that isn’t the case. It was a statement of humility. To say his life’s work was meaningless, IMO, would be an offense against God (from his perspective). We could go the same way with St. Paul. He says many profound things and there are Christians who were accused of being “Paulists”, this is why he constantly makes statements of humility and reminds his readers that he does not write to boost up his own ego.
Words are mere symbols. They are not the substance of what they attempt to represent.
The textual statements that comprise religious beliefs are mere symbols. They are not Truth itself.
To confuse a statement of belief with the Truth it very poorly attempts to express is nothing short of idolatry.
But I didn’t say that words and beliefs are Truth themselves. I said that if Truth is something objective, then there are certain words and beliefs that conform to Truth and others that do not. In other words, Truth is not relative. It cannot be only known subjectively.
How can you possibly claim this? Loyalty to one or more belief statements determines absolutely nothing.
If you do not believe you are saved by faith, by what means are you saved? And for you to announce what you believe to other people is to confirm the truth of salvation by your faith. Christianity is a communal religion. It is you interacting with the Other. So how you relate to the Other has quite a bit to do with your salvation.

And this claim is made throughout the New Testament. It is claimed by the Church. Salvation is not based on gnosis, but upon faith. And this heresy as been denounced many times over.
Well, if you have a spiritual experience, you know you have (or had) that particular spiritual experience. No more and no less.
If you have no spiritual experiences you’re stuck with belief - which really means nothing.
You find out after you die what your spiritual state/status is - a bit late, I would think.
If you put experience before faith, then you are basing your faith upon something that is transient and can be misinterpreted. On the other hand, if you put faith before your experience, you know how to proceed with the knowledge you are given. Like I said, I’m not denying spiritual experience, but it is not the basis of salvation.

Faith is what determines what you experience, not the other way around.
This is what has been lost in this age. The understanding that religion is the foundation for the esoteric.
It can be in potential, but by no means is religion a guaranteed foundation for the esoteric.
Especially when the form of religion is worshipped instead of using it as a tool to get to substance - again it easily degenerates into idolatry of ideas.
I would agree, but without the external form, esoteric religion degenerates into the worship of one’s self.
If you are sinking down into blackness, what makes you think you found the Truth?
Here the problem of words and cultural associations comes up again.
Outside the earth’s atmosphere, infinite space is black.
The points of light - stars - are intensely hot balls of fire - Hell perhaps?
If you are going for natural symbolism, I would guess that the abyss is night, the saints or angels are the stars in the heavens and when the sun (Son) returns, all things become enlightened. There are those who hide from the light in the shadows and deep in the earth because of what they did during the night. Hell would most likely be the volcanic activity below.
I agree that anyone who seeks Truth should contemplate their own death. But anyone who has found Truth knows that there is something beyond the abyss.
Why do you call the state post this infinitesimally short life on earth “the abyss”?
I’m not sure I understand what you are asking, could you re-phrase it?

I used the phrase the One used. The abode of the dead-- whatever you would like to call it-- is not heaven.
So, therefore, the belief in life after death is a confirmation of Truth and not born in fear of it. This confirmation brings meaning to this life. What meaning does your conclusion bring? Everything is falsehood, all of our thoughts and actions are pointless… it’s all just an illusion.
I’ve seen some great films - I know they are all illusions - I know they are in a sense falsehoods - but none the less … they are not automatically pointless because of that.
The meaning you find in a film is because of it’s relationship to something real. If it were just all make-believe, it wouldn’t have the same impact, would it?
Well, then, why are we hear in the first place? Why bother living? Might as well get on with the Truth, which you believe is death. Sounds pretty nihilistic. I hope you would consider that you were born for something more than just dying.
If these are the conclusions you come to from considering the concepts that One has expressed, then definitely that path is not for you.
Stick with loyalty to beliefs and trust that the post death reward you’ve been promised by your earthly, human spiritual guides actually pans out.
I spent many years in meditation, studying various spiritual texts and visiting a plethora of spiritual teachers. I’ve wrestled with these questions for most of my life. So, you are right, this path is not for me. But that is not based out of ignorance of what that path is.

This guy says that the Truth is death. And death is an oblivion. Meditating upon your own death, you will find that oblivion is not the end. There is something or someone beyond death… you could call it God. Upon that discovery, faith is not a denial of the Truth, it is a confirmation of it.
 
This guy says that the Truth is death.
If I am “this guy”, and that’s the impression that you’re left with after my posts, then I couldn’t possibly have been more severely misinterpreted!

It’s understandable, but still quite wrong.

For the record, my position is NOT that “truth is death.” Quite the opposite, in fact. 👍

Wow. This is proving far more difficult than I had imagined, and I thought I already knew the difficulties.
 
If I am “this guy”, and that’s the impression that you’re left with after my posts, then I couldn’t possibly have been more severely misinterpreted!

It’s understandable, but still quite wrong.

For the record, my position is NOT that “truth is death.” Quite the opposite, in fact. 👍
Perhaps you could go back and read over what you wrote and tell me what conclusion you would come to…
Wow. This is proving far more difficult than I had imagined, and I thought I already knew the difficulties.
I have another response in the mix, but I have to head to work.

Perhaps I could cut to the chase: in Christianity, the result of communion with God is a new man. In other religions, the result of communion with God is the obliteration of the soul.

The problem with the idea that we unite with God and there is no more “you” is that non-duality contains duality. The temporal is not separate from the permanent. And secondly, it leads to the mistaken conclusion that all that is physical is bad because it separates us from the One.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top