It’s only a problem if you want to begin to understand. Understanding requires work If you just want to think that’s OK too so enjoy the tube…
Edward Leedskalnin, disappointed by rejection, desired to understand and did so through his travels and self education beyond his fourth grade education.
According to our standards he lacked education but it didn’t bother him because his understanding acquired through his efforts to rediscover what had been forgotten, allowed him to participate alone in the efforts to actualize results of his self made education.
I’m 5’9’’ and around 180 pounds. I’ll admit to having trouble moving hundred pound speakers. Edward was 5’ and 100 pounds but could move ten tons of coral by himself. You may call him a fool for his lack of education and willingness to work rather than sit around and philosophize but even with my college degree, I consider him more educated than me.
Whatever the explanation, we couldn’t duplicate it by ourselves.
Were the ancients as ignorant as you seem to imply? I doubt it. I believe it was as it is today. There was a minority that understood and a majority that didn’t and needed to be led.
True knowledge about the things the holy books are talking about comes from self reflection. The only person you can really talk about anything with is yourself.
This is why I like the Tao, because if literary meaning becomes fluid once one engages in it, then we see that the smarter one is, the more they will see, or rather they will see a different path that they can of course justify to themselves and perhaps in words. But the Tao preaches (at least to me) that life flows through us, and thus to truly see it one must look within. Deep down the world in its entirety pulsates within.
Its contradictory phrases like this that cause me to say ‘Ok… that doesn’t make logical sense, but maybe that’s the secret’.
Religion is the finger pointing you in the direction, but it only manifests when you walk the path. This is why I don’t like the ‘rules’ in Christianity and Muslim culture. The moment you attempt to say something definitively, with words, all meaning is lost and madness ensues - eventually.
the bible is rife with metaphors. i see why many people dont understand it.
however,in my faith,many bible mysterys were figured out by looking at other parts in the bible where hints were given on the metaphor,or whatever.and also history was studied. if i remember right that was the foundation of the her·me·neu·tics. that and alot of meditation and scrutenizing of the parts.
Yes,the divine name was inserted into the bible in my faith many times to replace titles,but hebrews also allegedly left it out many times in the reprinting,because they were paranoid of the divine name.I find it odd actually that the churches leave out the divine name in the bible as well.
but not so odd in the fact that i find them hypocritical and false.
to an atheist,i suppose i cannot,and will not prove anything.
consider that in the flood,god did not get his angles to preform super-natural works to all,to convince them.but noah’s story would have seemed lame ass to an athiest of our day,back then.
it should tell us about history repeating,and we have an example,they did not.
that should also tell us something about how god values faith.but NOT blind faith in a falsehood,say like saul persecuteing early christians.or twisting the bible’s goodwill.
also,since it’s been 2000 years,someone could say it is all myth bullshit because it happened too long ago.
does the modern callender think so? do the massive ‘christian’ organisations think so?what about historians?the mysterious void in egyptian history where god deliverd the israelites? yah, and i know egyptian history is sketchy.
Drift, the divine name is not Jehovah. that’s a Mistranslation of the actual divine name YHVH (sometimes also referred to as YHWH) the mistranslation came from the hebrew to greek translation, where they applied the vowels from Adonai. (YaHoVaH or YaHoWaH), the next mistranslation came from the greek to german. the Y was change to a J and the first a to an e.
Most scholars now will say the correct pronunciation is either YaHVeH, or YaHWeH.
Nick,
Or, he educated himself to be a great con-artist.
I doubt that. I’ve seen shows that explain in technological terms available to those of the day how they could’ve built stonehenge and the pyramids. I think coral castle is an amazing work of art. There’s no metaphysical magic too it though.
think about it another way. Let’s say that Edward did find the secret “free energy”, and how to levitate enormous objects utilizing some “magnetic property” that exists in all materials. Don’t you think he was a bit selfish not to share it with the world?
Imagine the good that could be done in the world, with free energy. He had the answer.
So either way:
he was a con man that hired locals to help him move and build coral castle.
he “unlocked the secrets of the universe” and kept them to himself, so he could make money selling entrance to his coral castle. (which he did.)
I’m reminded of a quote from “red dwarf”, rimmer (one of the characters) suggests that aliens had built the pyramid, lister (the other character) mocks him and when asked how he thinks the pyramids were built he replies:
scyth, i’m well aware that we dont exactly know the exact pronounciation of YHWH,because the written hebrew language left out the vowels.
in fact to my knowledge,no one knows the exact original pronounciation,do they?
by the way thank you for that info. i didn’t know how it came to be jehovah exactly. and my religion agrees with YaHVeH, or YaHWeH.
because they’ve said that last sentance in a differently worded recognition somewhere.
How do you know? You just said we dont know what the original authors had intended to be conveyed. Its apparent to me that noone can interpret the holy books better than anyone else, and since we all have our little relative lives that filter the words to our understanding, then thats how it should be done. Your method of skepticism will not bring you any closer to the truth. I think you would be better off instead of trying to find the intent proposed by the authors, which in a lot of cases probably has nothing to do with the significance of the text, to actually try and understand life without these holy books. They have seemingly become an object of fascination with you that is leading you nowhere in relation to what they are here for. So, what is your purpose? Why do you wish to know the truth behind the books? Or do you just enjoy telling people their interpretations are flawed? If you really want the truth, its in yourself; it cant be anywhere else. I dont intend to insult you, or to prove you wrong, I simply wish you to consider the real reasons for your pursuit. Does it have a point? Id really like you to think about what Ive written.
I know through knowledge. I know through common sense. No special decoder ring needed.
no what I said was:
"the author can convey all the meaning he wants into the words of a poem, but when it comes across anothers ears or eyes, they apply their own filter of life to those words… "
My statements are targetted two fold.
a literal interpretation of the bible is no longer valid as we have advanced to a stage where we can better seperate myth from fact. The myth of the “rainbow promise” is one such perfect example.
the original authors (whether you like to admit or not) were not mystically inclined. If you are into mystically inclined text (which is fine and dandy) you should read stuff from eastern philosophers.
What makes the holy books so great though? They speak to us on a level of ancient mythos (like I talk about in the other thread) it’s not that book it’s the myth. And that myth is useless to most people as it’s dressed up in literal wolves clothing to instill fear of thinking outside of the box.
Here’s something else to ponder:
the holy book content:
the bible is made up of many different authors over a large period of time, it’s generally attributed by the orthodox that King David wrote a great majority of the works within… I think that is a large misnomer, as much of the work has very different tones, and very different views of god.
the book of mormon and qu’ran were both written by one author with much redaction and editing done by later leaders to keep the “flock” in line. After mohammed died, many of the recent muslim converts stopped believing in Islam. The Imam’s of the time fixed that, by making the consequences for not believing more severe. (islam-qa.com - an official islam site.)
so knowing that not all “holy books” were created equal we can begin to deconstruct them further. What in the greatest and most complex work is of the most use, and still relative today?
Many of the psalms are still relative. Ecclesiastics (which is very near to eastern mysticism.) the book of job. Some of the imagery of the prophets is very interesting how it compares the land of Israel to a “maternal” figure that god is going to impregant with vitality.
Do you think could justify the history portions of the bible? especially with the redaction how most of them conflict each other.
The question is, how would you know looking at all “holy books” through the eyes of relativity?
I very much doubt most of the authorship of the bible had anything to do with a mystical approach to god. Of course since your view is based in subjectivity, you can’t really prove me wrong.
The indians that live in the amazon jungle seem to do fine without the “holy books”. The eskimos that lived for eons fishing the icy cold waters, seemed to live life fine without the “holy books”.
for all intents and purposes? If I looked at the broad brush of history and the application of the “holy books”, it’d seriously look like they were here to drive a wedge between men. A literal interpretation tends to inflate one’s view of life, while a mystical interpretation, one is competely and totally applying their view of life to nonexistant shadow words.
let me say this:
myth is important. It connects us to the struggles of what it means to be alive.
myth has no need to be ancient, we can find myth all around us. We needn’t look at everything through the eyes of “literal” truth, especially holy books, where history was oft mixed with fiction. Prime examples of this existed even less than 100 years ago, with the crafting of the johnny appleseed story, the paul bunyan story, or the cherry tree story.
some myths are no longer applicable to our lives. It’s a sad state of affair to give up a myth, but it’s better to give it up, so we can move on. A larger more powerful myth will rise to take it’s place.
to get people to think about how they view the most holy.
the truth will set us free.
not really. It’s about as enjoyable as pulling teeth to prove that the tooth fairy won’t come.
i disagree, the truth exists like a web… it surrounds us, yet we look inward seeking something that we refuse to see. Something that envelops us.
There is no right or wrong on the path to self discovery. There can only be growth when you think about something differently.
sometimes… because it’s mundane not expanding the web…
Thank you for you reply. Firstly I would like to apologize for misquoting you.
You wrote:
In reaction to statement 1, I definetely agree with you here. I think its about time we flushed out all the madness in these books, maybe thats your purpose here, have you considered doing this on a large scale. Its a new day, I think soon all religions will lose their power.
In reaction to statement 2, your right they probably werent, but their inclination has nothing to do with how we should understand or interpret the words.
People interpret it literally, and for the time, if fear has helped them or provided for them a more complex idea of right and wrong to instill some type of morality, it cant be all that bad. Even if its a form of control.
Im definetely more partial to your cause now, I really think this is what you should do, but of course in the most objective way possible. What would set you apart from anyone else trying to debunk the significance of the “holy books”, why would people listen to you instead of follow their long flooded oppresive teachings further? Break it up, Im with you.
I think you know my reasoning behind this, just as you said:
Which is true, but you cant prove me wrong either. If I derive meaning from it, then its relevant to me, and in my reality; that is most important. You seem to derive meaning through myth, in your reality, that is most important.
Which is all the more reason why you, me, and everyone else can do fine without the holy books. But these individuals also had some type of belief system. So its not to say that they were simply living without some belief about something, but rather it wasnt written in stone or made into a religion. The point is, I think rather is that we dont need these books no, but we do need some type of direction; I think this will occur naturally if we dont destroy ourselves before change can occur.
With all your understanding I find it difficult to understand why you have such a strong disliking of mystical interpretation. Can you explain further what is it specifically that you see in these types of interpretations that you cant agree with. The interpretation you have described above is a relative one, not necessarily a mystical one; which IMO is attempting to move further away from relativity, at least as far away as one can get.
Your partially correct. The truth does surround us, but since we all live in relative worlds, that truth is invariably a biproduct of our own selves. No matter how we look at anything, or how we interpret anything, its through our relative filters. No matter how open minded we maybe, there is relativity. All things are based upon something else. The core of truth is in you. Its the only place it can be. If you dont agree, could you expound further with why?
don’t know if I agree with this, we have to view 1 with some sort of perspective of how they viewed the words, in order to know if it’s something that is still useful “myth” to us.
is it a better version of right and wrong though? look at all the stupid things done in the name of whatever holy god or book. Sure alot of things have been done outside of holy books… China, Russia, Germany, Italy… all were failed communist experiments. They had their faith pinned on other books that were not examined with common sense though… the marxist manifesto for the lot of them and the aryan principles for Germany…
absolutely, standards for redaction have got to be set by a committee.
it depends on what you derive importance from…
sure… they had their own myths!
I think mystical interpretation tends to lay shadows over much of what shouldn’t have shadows. I think it tends to also delve so far between the words of what’s written that you’ve completely gone beyond the original purpose of the text. Words can have meaning without needing to delve deeper. It also gives the words broader appeal.
We can trust the outside more than the inside… Our internal engine is flawed by it’s own desire to derive fact from fiction. Our external engine has an inherent ability to tell fiction from fact. Both engines our important… the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
yes the filters of experience… but it’s not like we can’t change these… both eastern and western myth talk about the “new wineskin” and the “new cup for tea”…
Some standards for redaction:
What is the message of the myth?
How does the myth relate to modern man?
How does the myth promote love or violence?
How Does the myth promote inclusiveness or exclusivity?
Why is this particular myth important or not important?
You’ve pointed out something. We as human beings, namely the ego in us, have commited all kinds of atrocities, backing them up with different books, pov’s, whatever. Point is, its all ego. This is why mysticism in the sense of, going beyond ego, seems to be of upmost importance.
How so? If we all live in separate realities, and we will all look at whatever it is we are deriving importance from differently, why does that matter?
Im not fully understanding you when you say lay shadows. Could you expound on this meaning? Couldnt any relative interpretation delve too far, or possibly not far enough into the meaning of any words written? The example of poetry was used earlier. Does it imply that something is lost, possibly. But it doesnt if the writers intent was simply to convey whatever the reader wished to understand. Which is often times the case in poetry. Also, I think in the case of Jesus, its obvious many of the things he says should be understood from a mystical interpretation. More so, many of the things he says when not taking from this interpretation, really have no meaning at all. If Christianity is based on this man, then why not look at the entire text through that lens. Also, in reference to these holy books, many if not every single one of them are tainted, have already been interpreted to an extent, especially through translation, and are filtered. So we arent getting the original product anyway. More importantly, whats the original product? Words, that were spoken, and then interpreted through the author. And of course the words of the authors themselves. I personally believe mystical understanding can be found in anything written on some level, simply because it deals with the basic essential fundamental reality we live in.
How can we trust the outside when its in provenience from the inside? The inside must be looked upon first. For it is the source of all interpretation. When you attempt to stop deriving your own fact from fiction, and attempt to look at the outside through a more open minded lens, only then are we getting closer to the truth of the outside. But in this case, the inside has to be changed first. Before you can obtain any truth from the outside, the inside has to be able to accept things for what they are. What is our external engine? Can there be such in relation to self? If so, it can only be mystical.
Exactly, which is an actual changing of the inside, which in turn changes the projection of the outside.
What are these standards based upon? Opinion. Even if a million people agreed to a side of one standard, there are a million others who disagree. Point is, the opinion is never a fact of what is. What is can only be that, what it is. There can be no judgement attatched to it. Thats fact. All language comes short of fact, for it places value to something that simply is or is not. This computer in front of me is, but I have reduced its existence to terms, very well limiting its existence with words.
How do we know that scripture isn’t meant to be taken literally? Because we deem it so. When the holy word was first written by men not gods, they took everything at it’s literal word. Now that we’ve changed, in order to keep the same belief structures we’ve changed them as well.
This creates a couple of problems when dealing with fundamentalism.
the moderates who “read between the lines” make it harder to confront the fundamentalist on just how ancient their beliefs are…
the moderates raise the value of ancient religion higher than reason justifies. If mohammed, or christ were alive today we would view them the way we view David Koresh, or the founder of the Heaven’s Gate cult.
A certain level of intolerance towards fundamentalism and moderates is going to be required to move beyond these ancient outmoded mythos and to find some new reason and new knowledge… new MYTHs that reflect modern life and modern problems.
The ego defines who we are though… would you suppress your identity?
We don’t all live seperate realities. Through common sense and reason, we can concur that we are all experiencing the same reality, we are just all interpreting that reality differently based upon ancient dogmas.
It all depends on your dogma…
Remember my alice in wonderland mysticism interpretation? I was applying a filter to the words that doesn’t apply to the words. It makes the original meaning of the text meaningless, and your applying such a degree of personal belief to the text that it’s meaningless to anyone else.
If you have a grasp on life that you want to share… instead of applying it to ancient text and changing the meaning of that text, make your own parable.
make your own myth. The ancient writers did it all the time.
for example:
They wanted to reintroduce “what had been lost” the law… So they rewrote a new myth as deuteronomy, and called it a “found book”. This happened again, when the jews were in captivity. They “found” books of prophecy detailing how they would be enslaved and how a group of men who had profound faith in god remained unharmed… it was a myth that the people could connect to. At the time, the people may have known it wasn’t “ancient”. We can’t know… we do know that prophecy is written after the fact…
These myths do reflect modern life and problems. They are still relevant today. They may not have computers or the internet in the text, but they still apply. The same kinds of problems that existed then, existed now. These myths are timeless.
Thats the problem. The ego defines our earthly existence. It is the object of our experience. Who we truly are is the true subject. The awareness. I would supress my ego, in the sense that I would allow myself to be diminished. The other person who hurts is the ego. The problem isnt necessarily the ego, its identification with the ego. The mind is a tool, but under the influence of ego, ie. being identified with it, it uses us instead of us using it. We get stuck in old thought patterns, things become automatic. This is why we have habits. We cant stop focusing on the past, or what could happen in the future. How often do we simply accept the present moment? Most the of the time, were trying to get to the next moment, waiting for something else to happen; living in the prospective future. We have been taken over. This is why we have psychological problems, this is why there are any problems. Think about it. If your worried about your ego, all you are worried about is yourself. Whenever you wish to help others, you are simply attempting to help yourself in some way or another. It has to benefit you in some way. Thats the way of the ego. Self first. Thats the only way it can be.
Experience is interpretation. All experience, in order to be made sense of has to be interpreted through our subjective minds. Were working with semantics. It can be metaphorically said that we all live in our own little worlds. But I think its more of a reality. If I see the world differently than you and anyone else here, and my subjective experience affects any and all things that I continue to experience through my own perceptions, then this is my own little world/reality. Not to say that an objective one doesnt exist, but if it does, it doesnt matter, because we dont/cant experience it.
Okay, but if your dogma and mine are different, and we derive two different perceptions with anything we read or experience, and we obtain different importance from the experience, what does it matter to everyone else what you derive importance from, other than the reason to try and make whats important to you, importance to them as well?
If I can derive meaning from the text, how can it be meaningless?
Again, what does it matter to anyone else, if Im the one reading it. And I derive my own importance from it, just as they do. We will never read/interpret two things the same way, so whats it matter what the text consist of?
Right! And people will still interpret how they wish. They will understand it according to them. They will derive their own importance. Do you see the point of what I have been trying to convey. None of the text matters in the sense of conveying an exact something. It only matters in conveying what all can be understood from it. The entire reason why life exist is so it can experience itself in neverending infinite ways. Noone will comprehend what I, or any prophet, myth maker, anyone has written the same way. I dont care if your a relativist, fundamentalist, literalist, or whatever else one might label themselves, they will all read anything relatively. So whats the true position? Whats the one that makes the most sense. Its obvious to me, because we cant get away from it. Its impossible.
This is the problem, myths werent written necessarily as myths. They are based off of an interpretation. Off of how someone viewed something. How they understood it, usually “reality”. Whether it was metaphorically, or literally. It was passed on, generation to generation. I think the question is, how can you write a “new myth”? From my definition of myth, we write them everyday all the time. More importantly, who is going to take the “new myth” seriously in the sense of importance that you wish to express?
illatative… I sugges you read Leda’s response to the thread in the rant house, I’ll post it here:
I don’t agree at all. We can’t reflect with resurrection as most of us don’t believe in resurrection. We can’t relate to a guy being swallowed by a whale. We don’t understand why god would punish a man to win a bet with the devil.
Let’s not joke around… if these books are the absolute best morality and mythos that man can come up with, than we are doomed to violence, hatred and prejudice.
And it’s exactly as Leda says. Your turning a Sows Ear into a Silk Purse. You ignore out of your BETTER morality those statements which you feel “no longer apply”.
I believe our Earthly existence defines our spiritual existence. One can be strong of spirit and connected to all of mankind, while still having a strong spiritual connection.
Yes but we can ask others, “Is this what you saw?”,“Is this how you remember the event?”
Usually it’s not the events happening in real time that are flawed, it’s the memory of the event that’s skewed by what happens later.
It depends on how different your dogma is. If it’s similiar enough we can come to a compromise.
Not necessarily. History and mythology were far more intertwined then… Even during the christian era it’s been argued that the writer of mark, knew he wasn’t writing a literal history.
These stories arent about relating in the sense you propose for them. I can relate to a resurrection, not because Ive seen it, but because symbolically it means something to me. I can relate to a guy being swallowed by a whale, hell if its big enough why cant it happen. And further, who said it was a bet? The devil tempts everyone. God allows the devil to do what he does, he is a tool for God. He puts us through suffering, suffering produces growth. We are all destined to go back to our Source. We cant get away from it. How could we? These myths may not be a direct reflection of whats going on, but they can be compared.
What have I ignored? I havent dismissed anything from these books. Everything in them has its relevancy in relation to the reader. You see violence, I see retribution. Its a known fact that you reap what you sow. Cause and effect. It happens. And this is a illustration of it in this particular perspective, nothing else. Take it how you will.
Our earthly existence is related to our spiritual existence, because we have to grow from it in order to come closer to the spiritual. The one who is strong of spirit is not strong in ego. Its incompatible. When your strong in spirit, of course your connected to all of mankind, for you are all of mankind. We are all connected. The more spiritual you are, the better you can see this connection.
Id have to disagree. The memory skews further. But perceptions are based on past knowledge and understanding, beliefs, etc. Take any ambiguous situation and every person experiencing it will put their own meaning to it. This meaning was conveyed during the experience, and further solidified during recall.
But there is always going to be someone who is going to have a different dogma. Your leaving them out, and they wont understand what you have attempted to convey.
This is what I am saying. History and mythology were intertwined then, which makes for the many mistakes of mythology being actual history. That cant happen now, and the creation of myths lose their importance if they arent considered real history.
How so? What do mean “going beyond ego”? How can drifting off with the fairies be of utmost importance?
After going through all those filters and lenses the whole thing must be pretty blurry. If all the Bible is, is a vehicle for your own mystic perceptions, why not read the phone book and give it a mystical take?
??? You remind me of a painter who stands in front of a black canvas deriving rheams of meaning from his interior projections.All well and good but the painting is still a wall of blackness.
Ad hom is useless. Ive never said anything about fairies, please, Im here to convey my beliefs about reality. Now, back to what I did say. Going beyond the ego means exactly what it says. Most people arent to the point of awareness where they realize that the ego is a blocking element. Its an object, not a subject. I often put it like this. If you were to take your name, all of your past experiences, and all of your hopes and ideas of your future experiences away; would you still exist? Not you in the sense of all your past experiences, name, hopes of the future; but an entity? Would life still flow through your body? Dont allow your ego to answer right away, the question isnt that simple. Actually think about it. If you actually gave it any thought, you would realize that who “you” thought you were may no longer exist, but something, someone, a lifeform, would still exist. This is who you truly are. This lifeform is the true subject. The silent awareness that has been taken over by your ego. Going beyond the ego, is going beyond the ego state we are currently in. It cant happen automatically. Ill admit, the words going beyond the ego can be confusing. But what happens is, we transcend the ego. The ego still remains, but it is no longer running the mind. The mind has been expanded, and includes more than the ego. This is the state I am referring to. Actually the next stage in evolution. I hope you dont think were done evolving. Anyway I guarantee you that in our life time(not sure how old you are, but im 21) this will be proven.
Because the phone book is simply a list of names. I mean you could do it. You could look at it from an egoic point of view. Analyzing all the egos in the phone book or something that like, but its a waste of time. And yes, it can be considered blurry, but nonetheless; we are discussing a book that millions of people accept as the truth. So its not even really about what we think, its about what they think. As lost as they may be, they dont want to let go of their beliefs. Which is exactly what mystical understanding teaches. Thats why I can look at any holy book and see the fundamental truth that all beliefs are man made. But the fact is, some beliefs are closer to the truth than others. Thats why mysticism focuses on inner knowledge, knowledge only you can find for yourself. Me telling you doesnt help much, see how you reject it. But I can promise you, if you were at a level in your evolution to understand, you would have looked to the inside, and you would understand. Thats why these words of these holy books speak to such a vast amount of people. Because they all derive their own understanding, according to their level of development/evolution. I dont fully know your position, but if your anything like scythekain, your a skeptic. You have reached what I refer to as the higher middle point of your evolution. Rejecting these text for the sake of contradiction and incoherence, that shows your at a level where you will begin to search for real truth. It invariably always turns to self.
Why the question marks? What is it that you dont understand? Hopefully I can expound for you. The painter you’ve described is every perceptible being. If you dont think you derive your own meaning about your experience then your asleep at the canvas.
Well, that’s if it’s really possible to escape your own ego. I’m wondering how you can, unless you’re unconscious or senseless, in which case I dont see how any great insights can occur. And why is this process of the utmost importance? Give me an example of great truths which have come to you from this mind expansion? Assuming you’ve experienced it.
It’s not just a cultural thing then…?
I see. So because I fail to look behind the absurdities, moral failures and contradictions of the Bible and search for the great mystic meaning underneath which can apparently only come from looking inside my own interior until I’m positively twisted over with insight, I must remain spiritually stunted. I guess I’ll just have to live with it.
I’d love to know what you actually mean by real truth invariably turns to self, other than it just sounding high-falluting.
Not if it’s going to be more of the same.
Of course I do, but meaning is an interaction between the internal and the external, otherwise you’re in danger of just masturbating your own thoughts. The point I was trying to make is this. What good is the Bible as any sort of divine book if I have to project all my own meaning over it? If for example I read passages in the Bible which dont sit well or make sense morally to me, and I somehow manage to find a way to read it so that it departs from it’s face value, what have I really done other than twisting things around to suit my own values? So what? you might say, we all view the world through our own lens. Ok, but then the Bible loses meaning as anything other than a projection of my own view…it can have little independent value as a spiritual text. I really might as well read the phone book…or better yet a sheath of blank pages. Then there would be nothing at all to interfere with my internal insight!
The process is of the utmost importance because if we dont all transcend our egos before a certain time we will all end up dead. Probably from some nuclear war or something. Going back to what I was saying to scythekain. The ego is to blame for all wars and atrocities; anything selfish. I havent experienced this state. Its often referred to as enlightenment or cosmic consciousness. Many men have allegedly reached this state of consciousness. From Buddha, Jesus, Blakemore, Yeaps, Bacon, Meister Eckart and plenty more. Thing is, these individuals attained to it in the past, while there are now many more modern enlightened beings showing up. Supposedly this flowering of human consciousness is occuring more and more often in our times, and will continue to occur. That is unless we kill ourselves of course. But as far as the great truths are concerned, its important to realize that all of these individuals have described a similar understanding. Most of which they say cannot be conveyed through words, for words always fall short of actual experience anyway, they fall short in a big way with this experience. But some basics behind the truths revealed are how all things are interconnected, more so how our true self is not separate from anything you can see or dont see. Also, there is a moral elevation. And sometimes you end up with some psychic powers. Also, some of them have come to a state to where they can “know” anyone they come in contact with. When I say “know”, Im referring to a knowing beyond how those persons usually know themselves. Its weird I know, but just as Ive said; time will reveal these things to all. Also, it has also been said that sometimes this type of experience can knock you unconscious when it occurs. But just as any experience one has, after they have come to there is remnants of the experience. The ego has been transformed through the experience. They often refer to life as being more “real”.
Not at all, its a human thing. At least humans who have a system of writing and recording. And the others that dont, still believe in something. As humans we want something to believe in. We will search for it until we find it. Also, its not cultural; because how would you explain people like me and you. Who look at things differently than most individuals in this culture.
No, unfortunately you dont see. You arent spiritually stunted, actually in comparison to most you’ve come a long way. But even those who havent reached your point are spiritually stunted. To each his own path, way, and development. I cant judge you for your level compared to mine. Its senseless, but the category I have placed you in is not to demean you, its simply how I see your skepticism in how it relates to the evolution of the species.
Im not exactly sure what you mean by falluting, but I will explain further either way. Basically, most people obtain understanding through others. Think about it, when you were born, you were filled with all sorts of beliefs about the world. As you got older, you heard different beliefs from your peers and teachers, etc. So then you got to choose for yourself which ones your gonna play into. What Im sayin is, all of this has been passed from somebody, to somebody, to somebody, and so on. So its not your truth, its someone elses. And if you’ve ever played that game in elementary where you whisper something into someones ear and it goes around the class to be completely wrong. The same thing happens. So if you want real truth about God(cause we are talking about holy books here), you cant get it from outside of yourself. If God exist, He will still exist as a part of you, and likewise you a part of Him. We search all day looking for God when Hes closer to you than you’ve ever imagined. Only this turn to self can reveal whats the truth about God/reality.
The difference between the Bible/Holy books and the phone book, is that it actually is trying to say something about the nature of reality. Your going to look at everything through your lens, but some words and sentences in their coherent fashion will produce meaning and understanding in a particular way. You cant get passed the language, it says what it says. But each and every person who reads the language is going to obtain there own meaning for it based on how those words have been used in the past in their experience. They then choose how these cohesive sentences are best understood from their POV. We all do it, thats why we’re here with different opinions. The point is, these books have been used throughout the years as holy text. The phonebook hasnt. If were going to interpret however we will anyway, then it obviously just doesnt matter. You will say what you say, Bob will say what he says, and everyone will say what they say. And some might agree, many more will disagree. But in the end; none of it mattered.