christianity
Yes, if you know "the way," manifest it. Just shine and see what it attracts.
But, on the other hand, Lao Tsu wrote a poem, "Tao Te Ching," and you, too, felt you should say something.
Shining is tricky. I like your post.
But, on the other hand, Lao Tsu wrote a poem, "Tao Te Ching," and you, too, felt you should say something.
Shining is tricky. I like your post.
I know what you're getting at, and you're right. It's a very fine line to walk, and something of a paradox. Especially since, like in the Tao Te Ching, he goes on for the rest of book straight out talking about the Way. What?! You just said not to and there you go... but in fact the story goes that he was pleaded with to write it, and so I give him some slack. 
There is another Taoist piece that I like better though, I can't recall the name and author off the top of my head, that ends that way instead of beginning. In short, it describes many ways in which the Way might manifest itself, and then ends on the most beautiful and perfect line: Words end here.
At any rate, for the rest of us who aren't as spiritually sound, it really is a puzzle of a thing. I myself get incredibly uncomfortable when asked directly about my exact religious beliefs, mostly for fear of becoming exactly what I said I don't like here, a poor teacher.
Thanks for the comment. ^_^
There is another Taoist piece that I like better though, I can't recall the name and author off the top of my head, that ends that way instead of beginning. In short, it describes many ways in which the Way might manifest itself, and then ends on the most beautiful and perfect line: Words end here.
At any rate, for the rest of us who aren't as spiritually sound, it really is a puzzle of a thing. I myself get incredibly uncomfortable when asked directly about my exact religious beliefs, mostly for fear of becoming exactly what I said I don't like here, a poor teacher.
Thanks for the comment. ^_^
Well done.
Lao Tzu was invited by the emperor of his land to sit by him and be his adviser and the teacher of the people, but right before entering the city he turned around and went back to his cave in the mountains, that’s how I remember the story.
As I understand it, knowledge cannot be transmitted efficiently and in a pure way without the ego being involved and corrupting it. In reality there are no teachers only pupils.
Krishnamurthy learned this the hard way. As brilliant as he was, he made a big mistake by getting involved with the Theosophical Society as a teacher, and he admitted that much before he died.
So I say, if you know the way, do not manifest it. Doing so will be a major mistake. People will flock to you like flies to a garbage dump, and you will end up being one of those “enlightened” people like Sai Baba, to give you a current example, and you, as a source of "The new knowledge" as the one touched by divinity, will create another POLARITY in this world. (Like we need another one).
One must admit that this creates divisions in humanity. You call yourself Christian and whoever is not your label a pagan, and in doing so you are discriminating against them, so are the Jewish who call the rest gentiles and Muslims call the rest infidels. It is very clear to me and many others that when followers of the mythological Jesus Christ, as an example, rally behind the cross as a symbol, proud to be the holders of the ultimate truth, they are, in fact, creating and forming part of a POLARITY, in a way a club of the chosen ones, whom in the end will clash with the other clubs (religions), and that, apparently is just fine, because is in the name of god.
How convenient to use that divine entity to excuse your own totalitarian actions.
You see Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the like are POLARITIES and as such clash with each other for supremacy, because one must understand that in the end, though the source, the core of the knowledge behind the religion, is the same, every religion has such a heavy ethnocentric baggage attached to it that the essence is lost, otherwise what is happening wouldn’t be happening.
Lao Tzu has being described as a chaotisian; I think personally that he was a Divine Anarchist. From the phrase "when you think you’ve almost got it, you’ve lost it.” It is my understanding that one should extrapolate that where rationalism enters to play a role, you lose the chance to acquire true knowledge.
Divine Anarchy, before you ask, is achieved by stopping the world, as you know it, stopping the flow of thoughts, and above all stopping the ego.
IT IS:
DIVINE ANARCHY is the expression of the spirit in the cosmos that does not follow hierarchical laws or structure of any kind, and it is only achieved by the extinction of the ego and the acquisition of true spontaneity.
J.A.L DAnarchyst
Also:
“In the zero point of a wave function is the path way to infinity.” --J.A.L DAnarchyst
This last phrase is not just applicable to consciousness but also to science.
As you told me the other day misterskank, you had one of these moments, and I was compelled to tell you to be careful, but I thought there would come a better time for knowledge to make its appearance. I had several of those episodes, as I stated to you, but what I did not say is that I shy away from them. I do not want to go there in a way, unless it is for the ultimate reason (reason metaphorically speaking), I do not want to find the way for m self, but to find the way for everybody at once.
I firmly believe that there are human beings on this planet with the ability to tap in the source and in a single spontaneous burst produce the evolutionary shift of the entire world consciousness.
You see it is not enough to smell like roses and emanate an aura of sainthood around you. That, we have seen, is the source of the creation of POLARITIES, which in turn, I find to be criminal behavior.
Knowing the suffering and devastation that religions create, creating a POLARITY or supporting one with your energy as an adept, is in my book, a criminal act against humanity.
If anybody is interested in this topic and wishes to know more of what I have found out about it, you are invited to CONSPIRACY.Mindsay.com where I have 3 or 4 entries related to the subject.
CONSPIRACY / DIVOMAN
J.A.L DAnarchyst
So many words, so much explaining—to say what? The futility of words, the futility of explaining?
The paradox.
Have there been previous "evolutionary shifts of world consciousness"? If so, alas, they couldn't stop the eternal world war.
If we can, let's be kind.
The paradox.
Have there been previous "evolutionary shifts of world consciousness"? If so, alas, they couldn't stop the eternal world war.
If we can, let's be kind.
Kindness is a very poor substitute for pure love.
Kindness is the pitfall of Buddhism.
If we can lets do the best, not settling for halfway.
Forward, Divoman! I applaud your quest for the best. I'll just try to be kind on the way.
You are going to hate me for this, but then you might jump.
Your blogs are so pretty! So well written, so collected and thought through, I’d dare say they reek of controlled-kindness … very “new-agey” of you. You have achieved a very readable blog. Are you proud of it? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Do you like the attention you receive? Is that all you wanted?
If that is so, I’ll tell you right now your kindness is more than enough for the crowd in mindsay, though I hope for your mental wellbeing you do not cross paths with any leopards along the way, because the smell will make you vomit.
Why do you think I am here?
Oh, by the way, before we continue, toilet paper doesn’t do it all the way, buy some moist wipies and use them before pulling your pants up, it will make a world of difference. DO IT, I’M NOT KIDDING.
Check the timetable of my blog entries at CONSPIRACY. You’ll find that I come around once or twice a year. I also participate in some other blogs every once in a while as well. What I say is not preconceived, and I do not choose whom I talk to.
AND NOW THE CHEESEY PART:
Find the river; I will be at the pond.
No need to answer.
DA.
Your blogs are so pretty! So well written, so collected and thought through, I’d dare say they reek of controlled-kindness … very “new-agey” of you. You have achieved a very readable blog. Are you proud of it? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Do you like the attention you receive? Is that all you wanted?
If that is so, I’ll tell you right now your kindness is more than enough for the crowd in mindsay, though I hope for your mental wellbeing you do not cross paths with any leopards along the way, because the smell will make you vomit.
Why do you think I am here?
Oh, by the way, before we continue, toilet paper doesn’t do it all the way, buy some moist wipies and use them before pulling your pants up, it will make a world of difference. DO IT, I’M NOT KIDDING.
Check the timetable of my blog entries at CONSPIRACY. You’ll find that I come around once or twice a year. I also participate in some other blogs every once in a while as well. What I say is not preconceived, and I do not choose whom I talk to.
AND NOW THE CHEESEY PART:
Find the river; I will be at the pond.
No need to answer.
DA.
I'm not much of hater.
and not much of a wanter.
A good blog. Curious about something, though.
A lot of religious people are brought up with a very dogmatic upbringing. They practically know nothing outside of their own dogma. And, for the case of the more fundamentalist Christians, this dogma more often than not drills into their heads when they're very young that someone needs to be saved.
When you've had something drilled into your head for most of your life, your mind is conditioned to accept it. Even if you question it and go against it later, you'll attempt to justify yourself and your beliefs rather than accept your change the way one accepts "I need oxygen today if I want to survive": instinctive and with zero conscious thought.
That said, condescension rather requires a deliberate attempt at separation. "I know X and Y, but X is better than Y, and you're an idiot if you're wrong."
In the case of dogmatic upbringing, people don't know X and Y. They only know X. Thus, it's not really condescension because they can't even begin to relate and sometimes not even fathom that not only is there a Y, but Y might actually be preferable to X.
So, people usually speak only what they know about, whether they're wrong or right. It's the illusion of knowledge that bolsters things like confidence and blah blah.
And then when someone who knows only X talks about X, whether a misinformed X* or the true X, those of us who know X and Y, well...
We just automatically assume pretentiousness, condescension, patronization, insulting, overbearing, etc.
But it's not. And here's why. This is because we know X and Y, so we can't actually fathom or sometimes even relate (order is important here, as it was the opposite with the previous) as to what "only X" actually means. BUT, because we know more than X, we know that if WE were to only tout X, we WOULD be condescending, overbearing, pretentious, and insulting.
That's the key here a lot of "open-minded" people constantly forget, fail to see, or just are entirely clueless about, making them equally as ignorant as the unskilled roofer.
You can't judge someone's intent. All you can do is get your panties in a knot by relating it to your experience and assuming that if you and other people you know would be condescending about this type of approach, then this person must be as well.
And that's not open-mindedness. That's condescension.
Ideally, if someone is being a douchebag to you, you should kindly inform them that you're
A) not interested
B) have another method, maybe inform them
C) ignore
Because if you know what should be as opposed to what the other person thinks should be, then, again. You can do enough to inform someone of it, but after that, to steal from misterskank, "...if you know 'the way,' manifest it. Just shine and see what it attracts."
.........But then one has to draw a line between being THAT open-minded and just being unresponsive, apathetic, and/or disinterested in the world, and that's an entirely different topic.
A lot of religious people are brought up with a very dogmatic upbringing. They practically know nothing outside of their own dogma. And, for the case of the more fundamentalist Christians, this dogma more often than not drills into their heads when they're very young that someone needs to be saved.
When you've had something drilled into your head for most of your life, your mind is conditioned to accept it. Even if you question it and go against it later, you'll attempt to justify yourself and your beliefs rather than accept your change the way one accepts "I need oxygen today if I want to survive": instinctive and with zero conscious thought.
That said, condescension rather requires a deliberate attempt at separation. "I know X and Y, but X is better than Y, and you're an idiot if you're wrong."
In the case of dogmatic upbringing, people don't know X and Y. They only know X. Thus, it's not really condescension because they can't even begin to relate and sometimes not even fathom that not only is there a Y, but Y might actually be preferable to X.
So, people usually speak only what they know about, whether they're wrong or right. It's the illusion of knowledge that bolsters things like confidence and blah blah.
And then when someone who knows only X talks about X, whether a misinformed X* or the true X, those of us who know X and Y, well...
We just automatically assume pretentiousness, condescension, patronization, insulting, overbearing, etc.
But it's not. And here's why. This is because we know X and Y, so we can't actually fathom or sometimes even relate (order is important here, as it was the opposite with the previous) as to what "only X" actually means. BUT, because we know more than X, we know that if WE were to only tout X, we WOULD be condescending, overbearing, pretentious, and insulting.
That's the key here a lot of "open-minded" people constantly forget, fail to see, or just are entirely clueless about, making them equally as ignorant as the unskilled roofer.
You can't judge someone's intent. All you can do is get your panties in a knot by relating it to your experience and assuming that if you and other people you know would be condescending about this type of approach, then this person must be as well.
And that's not open-mindedness. That's condescension.
Ideally, if someone is being a douchebag to you, you should kindly inform them that you're
A) not interested
B) have another method, maybe inform them
C) ignore
Because if you know what should be as opposed to what the other person thinks should be, then, again. You can do enough to inform someone of it, but after that, to steal from misterskank, "...if you know 'the way,' manifest it. Just shine and see what it attracts."
.........But then one has to draw a line between being THAT open-minded and just being unresponsive, apathetic, and/or disinterested in the world, and that's an entirely different topic.
"Silence," once said a Buddhist master whose name I forget, "is better than holiness." The Trappists think it makes sense. I understand it, too. But having learned through words, too, I haven't given up on language arts. As Katagiri-roshi says, "Sometimes we have to say something."
Yes, hence my last statement.
Voted.
Thank you. A very good job. I give ya nickle, though I think your contribution is worth far more. -
David
David
I'm not Christian either, but I was also raised in a Christian household.
I don't have a problem with Christianity in itself. My problem is with the Protestants who feel the need to shove it down my throat and tell me I'm wrong or going to hell or what have you. I don't mean all Protestants either...just the ones who do that and can't take "not interested" for an answer.
Or as Ghandi said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." It was something similar to that
Good post!
I don't have a problem with Christianity in itself. My problem is with the Protestants who feel the need to shove it down my throat and tell me I'm wrong or going to hell or what have you. I don't mean all Protestants either...just the ones who do that and can't take "not interested" for an answer.
Or as Ghandi said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." It was something similar to that
Good post!
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: the Id of humanity. - Hahah, it's the ADHD working for him. I feel sorry for the guy... I know how...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy