Every thought, or feeling, or any experience that a person has is as unique to that individual as their body. Even though we have many thoughts, feelings, and experiences that seem the same for us as they are for other people - the so-called, "common experiences" - in truth, our experiences are as uncommon as the pattern of blood vessels inside our eyes. And this is no small or unimportant distinction. In fact, the presumption of common experience is a major cause of misunderstanding and conflict in our world. Only when we learn to see each other as wholly unique from each other will we ever be able to see the single common factor that binds us as One. Only then will there be true peace and harmony. Only then will all suffering, injustice and fear come to an end. Only then will death be defeated (i.e. not by any medical or scientific breakthrough!).
Everything that I've asserted in the above paragraph must be perceived directly. You will not understand by taking any word for it. That's what faulty religions all have in common; they want you to take their word for the truth. But the one true religion (which can be found, surprisingly, at the core of the faulty ones) never demands that you believe anything that you don't already experience directly for yourself. This is the common experience of Life itself, which comes before all other experiences, and is in fact the source of all experiences.
It was this prime (or primal) experience that I recognized for the first time in my life literally seconds before I was about to commit my eight murder. It caused me to atop killing and turn myself in. And even though every aspect of my experience with this "Living Truth" is perfectly consistent with historical records - especially religious writings - it is still so alien to our ability to grasp with our "logical" or "rational" minds that the so-called "Justice System" - which desperately pretends to be logical and rational - cannot comprehend why I stopped killing and surrendered to the faulty authorities of this world.
What they could not see, and will never comprehend, is that it was not man's faulty authority that I surrendered to. It only appears as though I have surrendered to man's authority to those who cannot see the One True Authority of which I have since so often written.
I do not fear death because I know, through direct and personal experience, that my last breath will be no less miraculous, and no less alive, than my next breath today, or even my first some 50 years ago. I die with every breath I take, and am reborn each time. I know this, not because it is written by men (which it is in nearly every religious and philosophical text), but because I am experiencing it right now. And so can you. You have only to look past your thoughts, your feelings, and even your physical experiences, and experience the experiencer just once to know what I'm trying to say; to know what men have been saying for thousands of years; to know what any child can tell you with a look, and a smile - if only we listen.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Experience vs Understanding
Everyone has heard stories from people who claim to have visited other worlds not at all like our own and apparently not limited by physical laws. Some claim that they visited heaven after they died then came back to life (and back to the physical world) after meeting Jesus, God, angels or dead people. We have also heard stories about visits to our world from angels or other beings as well. Most of these stories involve some sort of message being conveyed from this other world, or worlds, to our own world.
Our history is permiated with such stories, and most of our religions are based upon them. So clearly they are important. But given that no two independent sources ever tell truly coinciding stories - they are consistently inconsistent - what are we to believe? Should we pick and choose? Or just ignore them all? Well, here is a solution that I think makes perfect sense, and yet is seldom considered simply because it might be too obvious.
Instead of looking to what we experience - either personally or vicariously - for insight into the nature and source of our existence, we should look at our personal and innermost understanding of things instead. This is commonly called intuition (though emotional experience is often confused with intuition. especially when it is consiquetly rationalized, it is not the same thing).
I am speaking about genuine intuition; the kind we typically ignore in the face of our experiences, emotions, and reason. It is impossible to define this in terms of experience, and yet experience itself is defined by it.
There is no easy way to say what intuition is, but I can - and often do - say what it is not. My only point here though is not to harp on what intuition is, or isn't; but, rather to just point out that the big mysteries in life don't seem so mysterious at all, when you stop relying on experience, and hence judgement, to try to understand. Looking to experience, whether they are "real", "emotional" or "spiritual" (e.g. dreams too) only confuses things, because all experiences are mere eminations (as proven by science and romanticized by poets), or dreamlike. So experience, not even so-called "reality", cannot be relied upon to inform us of our true nature, or the true nature of our existence or origin.
I hope this makes sense, because it is an important and fundamental concept that relates directly to the source of all confusion and, hence, suffering. the more we look to our experiences for understanding the more we suffer from confusion. The more we trust the source of all experience, the more we grow toward peace and understanding. I'm not saying anything different here than what our sages (Jesus, Buddha, etc...) have been saying all along. I'm just repeating an age old message, in hopes that you will hear.
Our history is permiated with such stories, and most of our religions are based upon them. So clearly they are important. But given that no two independent sources ever tell truly coinciding stories - they are consistently inconsistent - what are we to believe? Should we pick and choose? Or just ignore them all? Well, here is a solution that I think makes perfect sense, and yet is seldom considered simply because it might be too obvious.
Instead of looking to what we experience - either personally or vicariously - for insight into the nature and source of our existence, we should look at our personal and innermost understanding of things instead. This is commonly called intuition (though emotional experience is often confused with intuition. especially when it is consiquetly rationalized, it is not the same thing).
I am speaking about genuine intuition; the kind we typically ignore in the face of our experiences, emotions, and reason. It is impossible to define this in terms of experience, and yet experience itself is defined by it.
There is no easy way to say what intuition is, but I can - and often do - say what it is not. My only point here though is not to harp on what intuition is, or isn't; but, rather to just point out that the big mysteries in life don't seem so mysterious at all, when you stop relying on experience, and hence judgement, to try to understand. Looking to experience, whether they are "real", "emotional" or "spiritual" (e.g. dreams too) only confuses things, because all experiences are mere eminations (as proven by science and romanticized by poets), or dreamlike. So experience, not even so-called "reality", cannot be relied upon to inform us of our true nature, or the true nature of our existence or origin.
I hope this makes sense, because it is an important and fundamental concept that relates directly to the source of all confusion and, hence, suffering. the more we look to our experiences for understanding the more we suffer from confusion. The more we trust the source of all experience, the more we grow toward peace and understanding. I'm not saying anything different here than what our sages (Jesus, Buddha, etc...) have been saying all along. I'm just repeating an age old message, in hopes that you will hear.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The Devil's Twisted Logic
I just heard a man (supposedly educated with a doctorate in theology) preaching on TV that, "... if God were in control of everything we do then we wouldn't be able to convict a rapist, or a child molester". This caught my attention even though the ignorance of a such a statement seems obvious to me. So, I turned back to the offending channel (I was flipping channels when I heard the statement and had flipped past the channel as soon as I saw a man preaching; what he was actually saying didn't register until a second later), and I listened for a moment more to what he was saying.
I'd heard this kind of half-reasoned logic before coming from Christians and other self-righteous zelots, but never applied directly to child molesters and rapists - a subject most preachers seem to have enough sense to steer clear of; but not this guy.
He continued his argument in the classic and extremely predictable way of using Christian scripture, taken completely out of context and interpreted to mean what it doesn't even begin to say in a context, to support his erroneous logic. Specifically, he asserted that the Bible says "if... if... if... only IF we obey God, are we saved.". But the Bible, in context, says that if we obey God, then we will know we are saved - obedience to God is an indicator of salvation, not a method of obtaining it (by context I mean the repeated message throughout the Bible, and especially emphasized in the new testament by Paul and John, that salvation is by grace alone; the Bible states clearly and plainly that no one can choose to be saved, God chooses us). I'm just saying what the Bible says directly (see Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8, Titus 2:11 and 3:7, just for starters), not necessarily that I agree with it (I do, and I don't, but that's a different matter).
It just amazes me that people accept such garbage without stopping or even trying to think for themselves. You'd think that in matters concerning their "eternal soul" they'd make some effort to think through the logic. If God is in control of everything we do, then he's the one "convicting" the rapists and child molesters too! It makes no sense to just go half way with the logic, and then use twisted Bible scripture to back it up. But that's exactly what I saw this "doctor" doing, and it only took me about 30 seconds to confirm it, and continue flipping channels.
I found nothing else worth watching either, so I wrote this instead.
PS: If you consider the Bible to be an authority on such matters then you might be interested in reading Romans Chapter 9, where St. Paul discusses and defends the absolute sovereignty of God over every choice we make. See especially verse 16-20, Paul couldn't have been any clearer, and yet amazingly so many people still buy into the Devil's Twisted logic, and believe we have the ability to defy God's will!
I'd heard this kind of half-reasoned logic before coming from Christians and other self-righteous zelots, but never applied directly to child molesters and rapists - a subject most preachers seem to have enough sense to steer clear of; but not this guy.
He continued his argument in the classic and extremely predictable way of using Christian scripture, taken completely out of context and interpreted to mean what it doesn't even begin to say in a context, to support his erroneous logic. Specifically, he asserted that the Bible says "if... if... if... only IF we obey God, are we saved.". But the Bible, in context, says that if we obey God, then we will know we are saved - obedience to God is an indicator of salvation, not a method of obtaining it (by context I mean the repeated message throughout the Bible, and especially emphasized in the new testament by Paul and John, that salvation is by grace alone; the Bible states clearly and plainly that no one can choose to be saved, God chooses us). I'm just saying what the Bible says directly (see Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8, Titus 2:11 and 3:7, just for starters), not necessarily that I agree with it (I do, and I don't, but that's a different matter).
It just amazes me that people accept such garbage without stopping or even trying to think for themselves. You'd think that in matters concerning their "eternal soul" they'd make some effort to think through the logic. If God is in control of everything we do, then he's the one "convicting" the rapists and child molesters too! It makes no sense to just go half way with the logic, and then use twisted Bible scripture to back it up. But that's exactly what I saw this "doctor" doing, and it only took me about 30 seconds to confirm it, and continue flipping channels.
I found nothing else worth watching either, so I wrote this instead.
PS: If you consider the Bible to be an authority on such matters then you might be interested in reading Romans Chapter 9, where St. Paul discusses and defends the absolute sovereignty of God over every choice we make. See especially verse 16-20, Paul couldn't have been any clearer, and yet amazingly so many people still buy into the Devil's Twisted logic, and believe we have the ability to defy God's will!
Sunday, May 12, 2013
A No Brainer
I'm not sure if I had said this before or not, but it is a fundamental and important truth with regard to the achievement of ultimate understanding; so I will state it here as plainly as I can, and hope it will perhaps provide a passage for someone to find their way around the class of deception it has the power to dispel.
The ultimate truth - regardless of what it is understood to be - must be attainable (i.e. capable of being experienced, or understood) in the complete absence of intellectual capacity.
In fact, the only function intellect has in regard to the Truth is that it provides a false means of communication of the truth. This is why it is often said that the Truth can never be told, and that words can do little more than obscure it (unless those words aim to defeat words themselves, as these words, hopefully, do).
Again the ultimate Truth does not demand higher intellect to be experienced or appreciated. It just takes honesty, and perhaps a little faith (not in some fantasy or idea of the truth, but in Truth itself as an "unknowable", i.e. non-intellectual, experience). But, whatever it takes, it can't be had by any effort - only by grace.
(PS: Someone might ask, "If this is true, then what should I do?" The answer is, no matter what you are doing, you are already doing exactly what you need to do in order to ultimately experience higher truth. That's what "having faith" in the Truth (a.k.a. "God") really means - and it is what allows us to truly love (hence, understand) our neighbour, no matter how much they seem to harm us.)
The ultimate truth - regardless of what it is understood to be - must be attainable (i.e. capable of being experienced, or understood) in the complete absence of intellectual capacity.
In fact, the only function intellect has in regard to the Truth is that it provides a false means of communication of the truth. This is why it is often said that the Truth can never be told, and that words can do little more than obscure it (unless those words aim to defeat words themselves, as these words, hopefully, do).
Again the ultimate Truth does not demand higher intellect to be experienced or appreciated. It just takes honesty, and perhaps a little faith (not in some fantasy or idea of the truth, but in Truth itself as an "unknowable", i.e. non-intellectual, experience). But, whatever it takes, it can't be had by any effort - only by grace.
(PS: Someone might ask, "If this is true, then what should I do?" The answer is, no matter what you are doing, you are already doing exactly what you need to do in order to ultimately experience higher truth. That's what "having faith" in the Truth (a.k.a. "God") really means - and it is what allows us to truly love (hence, understand) our neighbour, no matter how much they seem to harm us.)
Dukha: A Sure Road To Hell
According to my understanding, Buddhism teaches that all suffering stems from our craving for pleasure. This causes an attachment to the unreal self; or tamba, that prevents us from being able to perceive what is real (i.e. nothingness, or nirvana).
Buddhist's tell us of the eight fold-path that helps us break away from tamba, and achieve enlightenment (i.e. direct awareness of nirvana). This path seems to essentially consist of denying oneself pleasure, much like the Chistian path of virtue. But, like the Christian path, I think the eight-fold path is often misunderstood and incorrectly followed.
The idea, as I see it, is not to deprive ourselves of pleasure, but rather to disconnect ourselves from it. Indeed, it may be useful to deny ourselves our every desire, but only as a tool for helping us recognize desire, and pleasure, for what it is, dukha. Dukha is the life of suffering that attachment to the unreal causes. But it is not necessary and in fact can be very harmful to deny ourselves pleasurable experiences if we only do so with the aim of enlightenment or salvation. To seek enlightenment for its own sake is a deceptive form of seeking pleasure. And hence, seeking salvation (in the Christian sense) is a sure road to hell, and only ends up leading to more suffering.
The idea of Buddhism, and Christianity when correctly understood, is fundamentally about balance; balance between desire and apathy, between that that is, and that that is not. It is a matter of seeking without effort, which is not something the intellectual mind can ever accomplish, though it can certainly interfere.
So, the idea of meditation, and/or prayer, is not to control our minds, or desires. But, it is to surrender control instead. And attempting to deny ourselves every pleasure, and suppress every desire, only ends up being another form of control that will lead to more dukha, and straight to hell.
(PS: Surrendering control over desire is not the same as surrendering TO desire - so be careful to make this important distinction.)
Buddhist's tell us of the eight fold-path that helps us break away from tamba, and achieve enlightenment (i.e. direct awareness of nirvana). This path seems to essentially consist of denying oneself pleasure, much like the Chistian path of virtue. But, like the Christian path, I think the eight-fold path is often misunderstood and incorrectly followed.
The idea, as I see it, is not to deprive ourselves of pleasure, but rather to disconnect ourselves from it. Indeed, it may be useful to deny ourselves our every desire, but only as a tool for helping us recognize desire, and pleasure, for what it is, dukha. Dukha is the life of suffering that attachment to the unreal causes. But it is not necessary and in fact can be very harmful to deny ourselves pleasurable experiences if we only do so with the aim of enlightenment or salvation. To seek enlightenment for its own sake is a deceptive form of seeking pleasure. And hence, seeking salvation (in the Christian sense) is a sure road to hell, and only ends up leading to more suffering.
The idea of Buddhism, and Christianity when correctly understood, is fundamentally about balance; balance between desire and apathy, between that that is, and that that is not. It is a matter of seeking without effort, which is not something the intellectual mind can ever accomplish, though it can certainly interfere.
So, the idea of meditation, and/or prayer, is not to control our minds, or desires. But, it is to surrender control instead. And attempting to deny ourselves every pleasure, and suppress every desire, only ends up being another form of control that will lead to more dukha, and straight to hell.
(PS: Surrendering control over desire is not the same as surrendering TO desire - so be careful to make this important distinction.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)