Guest guest Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 Dear Dan: I must apologize for my absence. I had to go to New Orleans this week unexpectedly and only had access to a computer for a few moments. The thread worked itself out without me so I won't try to rehash too much except to say if my silence sent an unintentional message it truly was unintentional. My apologies also to Wim and the others for not responding. Communication is prized above all social actions to me. Meanings and subtext are more important than the concepts conveyed (what is the actual meaning one is trying to communicate). Sometimes this takes a back and forth between people to get one's meaning. Personal economic considerations muddy this mix. If anyone stands a chance to make money by promoting a particular subject, communication suffers and this bothers me. Confusion of the mind is propagated by lies both intentional and not. Devotion to the Truth will unerringly lead one to clarity. To clarify what I mean below I will try to respond a little. > Peter wrote;II Peter, Chapter 2 > > 1. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as > there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in > damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring > upon themselves swift destruction. > > 2. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom > the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. > > Peter is talking to his flock telling them of people in their own > midst who lie to them and distort the word for their own purposes. A > very reasonable exhortation. > > some people cannot keep from promoting themselves at the expense of > the truth. The message is worthy. ---- -------------------------------- There are some who believe the discord among the disciples was fostered by Paul who seems to have a different emphasis than the others, a certain 'take' on being 'saved'. The fruit of the tree Paul nutured is still alive and well but bland, while a lot of the Truth of Christ goes unseen. I have to believe in this context Peter's words were not strong enough or to the point enough. There of course is the idea that Peter and the others had much to say about this and that those texts are not now available because the later flock keepers agreed with the much easier to understand path that Paul described, than the more Advaitistic views of the Christ. ---- -------------------------------- Hi Bobby -- Reasonable to whom? Reasonable to someone who wants to be part of a flock? Reasonable to someone who wants to be in charge of a flock? Mabye so. But reasonable to everyone? I don't think so. That seems to be Wim's point -- not reasonable to everyone. And what of someone who isn't of the flock, questions the authority of the one who wants to maintain a flock. Who is the false teacher -- how will this be known? One says, be part of the flock, and damn someone who questions the flock. The other says, being part of the flock conditions perceptions and distorts truth. How to know? Only from and of yourself can truth be known. No flock-keeper can provide the truth by telling me to beware the bad flock-keepers who aren't like him. The first-hand truth can't be handed over by a flock-keeper. So the question about whether one flock-keeper is true, and the other is damnable and false, is moot. The eagle's truth is not the truth of the sheep. Namaste, Dan ---- As always your unique way of stating deep principles is appreciated. I think the truth is a solution to a problem, an accurate discription, and the ultimate resting point for the soul. When I was young I always wondered why some things had the ring of truth and others did not. As long as I was in my loving heart I could solve math problems, look clearly, and feel oneness. When distracted these qualities were hit or miss. I came to believe that there is a thread through every event connected to that ultimate resting place. All I had to do was follow those things that had the 'ring of truth'. Devotion to the Truth can be criticised as 'whose truth?' if one is talking about individual events but not if one is talking about of Thread of Truth in each event leading one to liberation. This is the way I interpret the practise of devotion to Ishvara (God) in Ashtanga Yoga. I came to believe in something inside me that gave accurate answers when questioned with humility and the desire to know for the sake of knowing. I thought of it for a long time as the force or impetus of evolution toward sophistication. I found it impossible to communicate with others about this because 'truth' seems ultimately relative. Then I read a description of Ishvara as a soul that had never incarnated, was thus untainted by personal error, and supplied answers to supplicants. To me this was a reasonble concept to allay my conceptualization about something that is heartbreakingly beautiful. Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 Hi Bobby -- > I must apologize for my absence. I had to go to New Orleans this > week unexpectedly and only had access to a computer for a few > moments. No problem. I hope New Orleans was fun. > The thread worked itself out without me so I won't try to > rehash too much except to say if my silence sent an unintentional > message it truly was unintentional. O.K. Again, no problem -- And I am open to the message of silence, and not thinking that it is your silence, nor someone else's silence... > My apologies also to Wim and the others for not responding. > Communication is prized above all social actions to me. Meanings and > subtext are more important than the concepts conveyed (what is the > actual meaning one is trying to communicate). Sometimes this takes a > back and forth between people to get one's meaning. Personal > economic considerations muddy this mix. If anyone stands a chance to > make money by promoting a particular subject, communication suffers > and this bothers me. Confusion of the mind is propagated by lies > both intentional and not. I would see it this way: there is communication to serve the "me" and there is communication that isn't about "me" ... If money is involved, that may simply be practical realities that pertain to things like eating, sleeping, clothing. It's when money is being used to promote "me," to serve "me" -- then the communication is likely to be skewed. And, if no money is involved, that in and of itself isn't a guarantee that the "me-center" isn't active in the communication. > Devotion to the Truth will unerringly lead one to clarity. > > To clarify what I mean below I will try to respond a little. snip > There are some who believe the discord among the disciples was > fostered by Paul who seems to have a different emphasis than the > others, a certain 'take' on being 'saved'. The fruit of the tree > Paul nutured is still alive and well but bland, while a lot of the > Truth of Christ goes unseen. I have to believe in this context > Peter's words were not strong enough or to the point enough. There > of course is the idea that Peter and the others had much to say about > this and that those texts are not now available because the later > flock keepers agreed with the much easier to understand path that > Paul described, than the more Advaitistic views of the Christ. My point of view is simple: Jesus didn't write texts to present his teaching. There is a reason for this, the same reason he spoke in parables, and wrote in the dirt and wiped it away. Making the teaching of Jesus into a structure, an organization, founded on principles and statements to be preserved as items of belief -- very likely he forsaw this was inevitable, understood that people want something concrete and fixed -- "on this rock shall be built my church" -- yet it's clear the revelation is not fixed, concrete, nor a structure -- the son of Adam has no place to lay his head, I come as a thief in the night, etc. > As always your unique way of stating deep principles is appreciated. Thank you -- as I appreciate what you are sharing. > > I think the truth is a solution to a problem, an accurate > discription, and the ultimate resting point for the soul. I view truth as the end of the attempt to solve anything, as descriptionless, as the resolution of all striving by a soul or to have or know a soul. When I was > young I always wondered why some things had the ring of truth and > others did not. As long as I was in my loving heart I could solve > math problems, look clearly, and feel oneness. When distracted > these qualities were hit or miss. O.K. Sounds like intuitive math ability, probably pretty helpful with geometry homework. I hear what you're saying that when relaxed and open, one's abilities flow more readily. > > I came to believe that there is a thread through every event > connected to that ultimate resting place. All I had to do was follow > those things that had the 'ring of truth'. Devotion to the Truth can > be criticised as 'whose truth?' if one is talking about individual > events but not if one is talking about of Thread of Truth in each > event leading one to liberation. This is the way I interpret the > practise of devotion to Ishvara (God) in Ashtanga Yoga. Okay. For me, the truth is that there aren't separable individual events, except in terms of concept. Liberation is then knowing that there is no one to liberate -- no one and no thing having an independent existence as a separable event. > I came to believe in something inside me that gave accurate answers > when questioned with humility and the desire to know for the sake of > knowing. I thought of it for a long time as the force or impetus of > evolution toward sophistication. I found it impossible to > communicate with others about this because 'truth' seems ultimately > relative. Yes. Any communication assumes a separable meaning which can be conveyed to a separable entity who hears. The truth of no separable meaning is the voice of silence, a silence that is never disturbed by sound or speech, because there is nothing separable from it. > Then I read a description of Ishvara as a soul that had never > incarnated, was thus untainted by personal error, and supplied > answers to supplicants. To me this was a reasonble concept to allay > my conceptualization about something that is heartbreakingly > beautiful. Okay. And, does this not apply to you? Are you not the one who has never incarnated? Indeed, there can't be someone who incarnates if there is no separably existing self or things. There is only the one event, unbroken, the nonconceptual truth of being -- and there is that which is beyond being described as an event. And the event, and that which is beyond being observed or known as an event, are not-two, as you are. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 > > > Then I read a description of Ishvara as a soul that had never > > incarnated, was thus untainted by personal error, and supplied > > answers to supplicants. To me this was a reasonble concept to > allay > > my conceptualization about something that is heartbreakingly > > beautiful. > > Okay. > > And, does this not apply to you? > > Are you not the one who has never incarnated? > > Indeed, there can't be someone who incarnates > if there is no separably existing self or things. > > There is only the one event, unbroken, > the nonconceptual truth > of being -- and there is that which is beyond > being described as an event. > > And the event, and that which is beyond > being observed or known as an event, > are not-two, as you are. > > Love, > Dan Dear Dan: I don't take the image described as Ishvara literally. I was glad that someone had created an image which described something I had difficulty communicating, that there is a guide. I like to see the way you describe Truth. It is like a mental dance of nature. Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 Hi Bobby -- Nature dances through us all! Love and namaste -- Dan > > Dear Dan: > > I don't take the image described as Ishvara literally. I was glad > that someone had created an image which described something I had > difficulty communicating, that there is a guide. > > I like to see the way you describe Truth. It is like a mental dance > of nature. > > Love > Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.