This is in refute, as many argue that she was degraged in Christian scripture to diminish the status of women.
If anything, I think this situation shows that jesus LOVED mary, more than christians are willing to admit. A special “get a room” kind of love.
[/quote]
Ah, you read The Da Vinci Code, no?
Fun book, but much is based on fact as well as fiction. 
Lady A
What makes you think I’m not being honest with you or anyone else? I don’t see all hearts as equal. You say: “I see others as myself - I see my own heart reflected in their hearts.” Since I believe that emotional quality varies as much as intellectual quality I cannot accept such a relationship between hearts. I don’t have Mary’s purity and it doesn’t bother me. You see it differently but is it fair to say I’m not being honest though I may be misguided?
Jesus was affirmation. He affirmed what was there. This is more than honesty which implies the possibility of wrongful dishonest deception. Judas was prone to living by image. the importance of the image in the cultural context was of primary importance. Image by its nature is not being honest. This is why vanity is a sin. It denies the ability to experience reality which is essential for a person to grow inwardly. Am I being dishonest with you by saying this? It is how I believe.
This may be true and it also may be true that I’m saying things you don’t want to consider. If I were to write Osho like, it wouldn’t be me. Would you prefer me being honest or writing in a way that is not me for the sake of peace?
I have a feeling for cosmology. Maybe I am only talking to myself but why blame me for trying. One of my ancestors had few peers, perhaps Turner, in his chosen form of artistic expression of sea and sky. One of his paintings I’ve seen reproductions of was of the cosmological descent described in the beginning of Genesis. It is done in shadings of light. Some understand it and some do not. Some mainstream respected men like Jacob Needleman have written on cosmology. Some understand it and some do not. It talks to some and not to others. Should they not express their beliefs in their chosen manner because some are not interested? So I’ve learned that it is not wanted around here so I no longer speak of it. That is the best I can do. There is no good in shoving it down anyone’s throat nor in talking to myself. Is there an alternative I’m missing?
What has brought people together in the aftermath of Katrina? It is practical necessity. It is the raw reality of the condition. No need to cutsey pooh it or to speak in platitudes. The raw reality brings people together.
Yet a perceived practical necessity could also bring people together as it did in the Jewish Holocaust. The imagined practical necessity was considered getting rid of the perceived cause of problems.
However a humanistic ideal like equality cannot bring people together since people though they may preach it, don’t really want it. It is not felt as a practical necessity.
Hi m r n
Was it the ideals or the success of the system based on a perceived practical necessity of accumulating wealth? Now of course with more experts coming into being, the party, may be over but we’ll see.
But the economics of communism is based on equality decided by experts. This goes over like a lead balloon so the system cannot sustain itself even if it adopts a totalitarian regime simply because of a basic human weakness well described by Simone Weil:
Jane was just being a normal unmarried Jane. If Larry is considered the ultimate of the community, her rebuff is a sin against the community. It is the direct result of lack of education.
Grrrrrrr…People have been shot for less. 
Hi aspacia
Of course it does. “Hell hath no fury like an expert scorned.”
Such insults to the public good cannot be tolerated.
mrn,
“Well, for a secular example, ideals have kept America unified for over 200 years.”
That was a hell of a little tiff, the American Civil War, probably over 1,000,000 dead (united).
Dunamis
It’s not that you are not being honest with me, it’s not that I want or need you to write like Osho or write like me or anyone else, I don’t care about your language or if you use poetry or if you use metaphor…or if I have to ask more questions for you to explain yourself in a way that I can grasp your thought…I don’t care about your style - you should definately just write the way you write…It’s not the content of your writing that I’m concerned with. it’s the intent. You are not talking to me, you are talking at me. You are not truly listening. You are speaking.
A classic failure to communicate. You are so intent on your own line of thinking that you have missed any real communication between us. Your mind is so trained on your own material that you are unable to see the other person. You are talking at me thus you are talking to yourself.
Forgive me Nick for intruding into personal space but I am dizzy from going around and around your head with you. Either I tell you or I walk away. Today I choose to stay.
A
Hey there Lady A
I don’t consider what you are saying an intrusion on personal space so don’t worry about that.
You seem to think that I don’t read you. I believe I do but just don’t agree completely. Say for example the following excerpt from a previous post on this thread:
You rightly suggest that thinking is often an acceptable means for avoiding doing. I agree. However, I believe the same is true with emoting in the moment. Such emoting avoids the witnessing of quality of emotion. The heart is one thing and reactive emotions are another.
If a person says: “with a clear conscience and a pure heart, I shot the bastard.” is it really conscience and a pure heart or just emotionally reacting in the moment?
Somehow,with freakish accuracy, she hits the nail on the head again.
Keeping this in mind, the purity of Mary’s heart allowed her to witness the corruption of her own emotions and the limitations it imposed on her being.
From this perspective, it was these defilements that previously had allowed her to go with the flow and become oblivious to her heart. This raises the question as to the importance of conscious flexibility as opposed to mechanical flexibility.
The essence of the teaching makes us temporarily aware and in this way are expedients. However, it is our nature to conceptualize which is why we must come back to it.
Intellectual interpretations are one thing and contemplation is another. Where heart can perceive the necessary distinction, emotions often do not and favor selective interpretations as “feeling right”
I believe I am respecting and listening to your emphasis on the necessity of the emotional experience but I don’t know if you are listening to my emphasis on emotional discrimination.
I have certain talents and also deficiencies in other aspects of my psych. If I just concentrate on my talents, I’ll lose even them in the esoteric sense. This is why it is necessary to balance the intellect, emotion and sensory, in order to function as a complete human being through presence and becoming open to balanced being growth.
This does not occur naturally by going with the flow since our initial position is corrupt and out of balance so going with the flow is a way of preventing the heart from seeing. So the good thing would be if I could be open to you emotionally and you could be open to me intellectually. Then people help each other. Unfortunately, it rarely works out that way because of the defense of “right and wrong.”
I do not, not ever emphasis the emotional experience. Our emotional experience is simply part of the mind. Part of the world of duality. The heart that I speak of is the True Nature, our essential nature. Very and completely different from human emotional love. That Nick is a fine example of your failure to listen.
A
It was 650,000 dead to keep the United States united. The was was instigated because of economics and states rights verses federal rights. Hence, federal law trumps states rights. This is still often argued in Congress.
If the war had not been fought, the South would probably be worse off than it is now. Take a look at the poverty level in the South. At least IMO.
Do you not agree that we have basic ideals in the U.S.A.? Constitutional law, The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights. Yes, we still debate and argue, but this is another ideal outlined in our original law, free speech.
A
The point is though if you reaize that like me, you don’t have access to heart. Our emotions get in the way.
All this talk about peace and world cooperation you read doesn’t take into consideration that we lack the presence that would be necessary for us to be collectively other then what we are. We cannot collectively know and admit to ourselves as Mary did so everything remains the same. This, I believe, is much of what was so offensive to Judas. When image is seen for what it is, it means its death. Naturally it seeks to avoid it.
Jesus taught us the Way to the heart. All one really has to do is follow His teaching.
As simple as that, but like Judas, yes there are many who are too opinionated and thus cannot see the path. And, to say that none of us has access, is rather opinionated.
A
A
Is carrying ones cross really so simple?
Actually yes but this is another disussion for another day. But not today.
A
asp.
Do you not agree that we have basic ideals in the U.S.A.?
I really don’t want to go into your diatribe of what you “think” are the basic ideals of the U.S.A - in your typical us vs. them mentality. Quite certainly though, the Civil War was fought, and rather bloodily, because there was a fundamental disagreement upon those ideals. Those ideals themselves cannot be said to be “unifying” for over 200 years, if the interpretation of those ideals lead to a horrific Civil War. That one side lost, and the victorious side then propagated its version to future generations, does not mean that that version somehow held the country together for over 200 years. The retrospective, reconstructive histories of a country - like the simple ones that conveinently forget the Civil War - are the things that give the impression that ideals seamlessly held the whole thing together.
It was 650,000 dead to keep the United States united.
I have seen estimates as high as 500,000 Union dead alone. In truth there is no way to accurately state this number. How about I say “a lot of dead” and you say “a bit less than ‘a lot of dead’”?
Dunamis
Hi A
Resistance in the context of Paul’s description of the “wretched man”, really is an interesting discussion.
For now though, I remember when Xander introduced an interpretation of depth psychology. The depth psychology in esoteric Christianity is incredible. This whole description of Jesus anointed at Bethany is replete with meanings of different depths.
Judas contrasted with Mary raises the interesting question of what it means to give to Caesar and to God. How do we divide ourselves: our inner and outer life?
They really cannot be equal.
Mary chose God. But it is not easy and requires realistic experience in order to choose:
This is the problem of attachment spoken of by all the traditions initiating with a conscious source.
So from the point of view of the hold of attachment which is what normally governs our life and creates the power of the “Great Beast”, Judas’ attitude is quite understandable. Yet Mary feels and admits the problem and asks for help because she has grown in her freedom to “feel.”. There is no contradiction here in the concept of poor because in their gathering at Bethany, the results of Mary’s sacrifice or freedom from attachment went to poor in spirit rather than financially poor Judas could only appreciate.
I don’t know about you but this really vivifies this question of our inner life: How do we really respect the attractions of these two masters? How should we give to Caesar and to God?
It really is very simple Nick. Jesus himself said it in very plain words. Give what is Ceasar’s to Ceasar and give what is God’s to God. You make it all so complicated. It’s the intellect which is so clever. Give it up, it doesn’t serve you. Just do. Simple. If we only ever talk about it, there is no time for doing. Action speaks so much louder than words and when our actions are ‘right’ our words follow.
Sincerity/(faith) is the virtue central to all the virtues, without genuine sincerity one is really incapable of detatching, but all of us are capable of sincerity. It really is a choice.
A
LadyA
I must respectfully disagree. The secularization of religion no matter in what form is the direct result of confusing our obligations to the higher and to the lower. All public morality and religious wars are a result of this confusion where this mishmash only serves as nourishment for the “Great Beast”
Doing requires becoming able to to do. The whole idea of Plato’s cave is to describe why we cannot do. Going with the flow is fine for life in the cave but for those seeking the source of life outside the case it requires moving upstream against the flow much like the salmon as it returns to its source.
I do not believe that distinguishing between what is of God and what is of Caesar is as easy as you suggest.
Sincerity is the same. Before thinking of sincerity one must be able to distinguish between a lie and the truth in oneself. Efforts at impartial self knowledge eventually reveal most but it is more than the desire. Sincerity requires a certain inner freedom in order to become able to distinguish between the truth and the lies in oneself.
Judas’ mixing God and Caesar together made it easy to consider Jesus to be this disturbing influence that could cause more harm than good. The betrayal was necessary and why Jesus, with Judas’ knowledge, gave him the sop that allowed him to lose his higher awareness and do what had to be done from his earthly perspective.
Well goodluck with trying to get out of your cave.
There is no doubt in my mind what is God’s and what is Ceaser’s. For me it’s a choice, granted not always an easy choice, often I just want to play in my own illusion, but I assure you, I know the difference - and that is the journey.
Have a good day Nick. I’m off to play in the woods.
A
Hi A
I must tell you an interesting story here. In the early part of the twentieth century a young student of a very great master wanted to invite his mother to meet him. He agreed and one day his mother came who was well known in the community for her efforts to help.
She thanked the master for being a good influence on her son and described how she respected responsibility because of everything she was involved with and began to explain everything she was doing.
Finally this truly extraordinary master sighed and said that he knew of the demanding effects of responsibility since he had 82 wives. She became a little perplexed and soon left. After the inner grumbles finally subsided she had an interesting revelation and returned to the master. She told him that she never had realized how much of what she was doing was for the sake of proving her self importance to the community. She really wasn’t thinking of others as much as her own self importance. With that the master smiled at her.
Sometimes it takes such a shock to really clarify for us in which direction our efforts are really intended.
Play in the woods eh? Will you remember the forest or get lost in the trees? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Have a good day.
Thank you Nick.
Now stay away from me.
A
A
Are you serious?