A set of genuine questions. Not a trap. Bible quotes needed.

[Dontaskme]

“Genuine seekers look beyond the appearances to that which lies behind the observer. They want to make direct contact with their true self, which is not found in churches or from those BS spiritual retreats offering instant enlightenment.”

Are you referencing a bad experience, or are you speaking about observation of others?

I went to one only once, although there was no talk of enlightenment. I simply went to get verification from a great teacher, for what had happened to me, because no one had adequate answers. I knew from their answers that they did not know what I knew. I had to go pretty far as he travels a lot around the world and his physical presence is brief and scarce for my means. So, I found the teacher and all my questions were answered, mostly in silence. Miracles happened afterwards. One involved vision, for a time my myopia was gone. For some time afterwards, I received teachings in dreams that were not like ordinary dreams in their vividness and clarity. I've learned teachings in his tradition of knowledge that explained what happened to me, but I'm not a teacher or representative. It's why there's no mention of specifics.

I think maybe you need no verification.

I’ve gathered that you’re satisfied with what you know.

I suppose what I should have said and meant was that there is a lot of confusion about what enlightenment means.
If we attend the retreats in the hope of becoming enlightened we are going to be very disappointed.
A good teacher will point that out anyway, the teacher will say something along the lines of...(there is no one to become enlightened.. there is no separate ''me'' to become enlightened, and that my friends is what enlightenment means.)

It means the dissolving of the separate 'me'...the 'me' doesn't become enlightened, the 'me' dies, the 'me' doesn't get anything out of this at all, it's a losing game with a twist... ..the 'me' is lost, and all that's left is the everything. And that everything is already enlightened.

I personally have never attended a retreat, nor have I followed any specific teacher. I'm totally self taught, I deconstructed myself alone when I instinctively knew I did not exist as I thought I did. So even if I did go to a retreat, it would only be to listen to my own heart with the desire to just sit in silence with that. I wouldn't be there to gain some knowledge,or ask any questions, because for me, I'd already know what the teacher is talking about.

I also received teachings in dreams that were not like ordinary dreams in their vividness and clarity like you...This happened once I'd become open enough to receive the information.We are conduits for this information, we are the channel for what ever information we are ready to hear and will hear it depending upon how open we are to receiving it.

.

[Dontaskme]

DaM

Intelligent people have a tendency to look further beyond the label of surface appearances,aka (beliefs)...they tend to go straight for clarity, so they look deeper into their own selves, they go inward rather than allow themselves to be indoctrinated by the outward beliefs of the myriad of conflicting denominations of religious authority.

Yes, but how is it done?

Religion is often in conflict with opposing egoic agendas, however, the goal is the same, in that all paths lead to the same destination, discernment is the key. Culturally we are all different in our beliefs and ideas, or in how we are programmed to think about ourselves and the world in which we live. So that's why I mentioned the confusion that religions can be. But religion is an important stepping stone into self inquiry. It's the start of the spiritual journey back to source. The bible and the koran are amazing instruction books, their guidance for the human condition is invaluable, and only those with ears will hear, and eyes will see, the pure of heart will see God so to speak.

Nick, I understand the black and white horse analogy that you emphasized upon, and I agree with you. I don't mean to come across as leaving one side of the equation out. I embrace both sides as equally important aspects of self.

I think I've answered the rest of your ''response post'' over at Bill's thread.

.

[Nick_A]

Where in the Old and New Testaments does it say:

- God is infinitely good

- God is the greatest

- God sees all

- God only knows, God knows all

- God is merciful and forgiving

- God can be trusted

- God loves his children and who precisely are these children

- God never needed anybody's help

- God has existed forever

-

What would you say is the purpose of the Gospels? Is it supposed to serve the intellectual purpose like a physics text book would or is its purpose to convey psychological meaning that is beyond the limits of literal reason like a work of fine art would?

[-1-]

What would you say is the purpose of the Gospels? Is it supposed to serve the intellectual purpose like a physics text book would or is its purpose to convey psychological meaning that is beyond the limits of literal reason like a work of fine art would?

Isn't life a test by god that it presents to people? according to Christian myth.

So why are you objecting when one wants to find answers to the test?

That's A. B. is that things beyond the limit of literal reason gave rise to religions because the empirical data was not available to reconcile events with reasons. So many a gap had been created, and man was busy filling these gaps with explanations that involved the supernatural.

The time of gaps is over. Reason caught up with belief, and went even beyond that. Belief is for people who cling to gaps, or if not, then they enjoy the motions that were involved when gaps still existed. It's a form of sentimentality, nostalgia. I will never argue with a person who clings to religion because to their opinion it is beautiful. It's not ugly, or repulsive, religion is not. But it sure is silly.

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

[Nick_A]

What would you say is the purpose of the Gospels? Is it supposed to serve the intellectual purpose like a physics text book would or is its purpose to convey psychological meaning that is beyond the limits of literal reason like a work of fine art would?

Isn't life a test by god that it presents to people? according to Christian myth.

So why are you objecting when one wants to find answers to the test?

That's A. B. is that things beyond the limit of literal reason gave rise to religions because the empirical data was not available to reconcile events with reasons. So many a gap had been created, and man was busy filling these gaps with explanations that involved the supernatural.

The time of gaps is over. Reason caught up with belief, and went even beyond that. Belief is for people who cling to gaps, or if not, then they enjoy the motions that were involved when gaps still existed. It's a form of sentimentality, nostalgia. I will never argue with a person who clings to religion because to their opinion it is beautiful. It's not ugly, or repulsive, religion is not. But it sure is silly.

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

I don't know where you got this idea of a test but be that as it may, The Gospels have a purpose that doesn't require answering your questions. Its concern is for what we ARE in contrast to the conscious potential for human being. Your questions are directed at the outer man but the concern of the Gospels is for the inner man so must be written in a way to bypass the literal thought of the outer man. Your questions pertain to discussing information. The purpose of the Gospels is psychological. They are complimentary. When understood, information can become part of a human perspective which gives experiential human meaning to information.

The Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re-birth". This is their central idea. ... The Gospels are from beginning to end all about this possible self-evolution. They are psychological documents. They are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding. ... Everyone has an outer side that has been developed by his contact with life and an inner side which remains vague, uncertain, undeveloped. ... For that reason the teaching of inner evolution must be so formed that it does not fall solely on the outer side of man. It must fall there first, but be capable of penetrating more deeply and awakening the man himself --the inner, unorganized man. A man evolves internally through his deeper reflection, not through his outer life-controlled side. He evolves through the spirit of his understanding and by inner consent to what he sees as truth. The psychological meanings of the relatively fragmentary teaching recorded in the Gospels refers to this deeper, inner side of everyone.

- Maurice Nicoll; The New Man

[-1-]

Your questions pertain to discussing information. The Gospels have a purpose that doesn't require answering your questions.

So... a human being is to understand the Gospels although they contain no information. This is unique.

When understood, information can become part of a human perspective which gives experiential human meaning to information.

Okay, I stand corrected... you are refining your meaning gradually. So first comes understanding, then information. A bit hard to imagine, because humans process unknown to understanding via processing information. But here you come to your own rescue:

the Gospels is for the inner man so must be written in a way to bypass the literal thought of the outer man.

This is a nice theory, Nick_A, except I don't buy it. I don't buy it, because this is not at all how I see the Gospels. You just gave me YOUR version of how to read the Gospels, and you are adamant your version is the true one, but on a logical basis you can't prove it.

You are a great believer, but this is not a forum to convince each other of our own beliefs just because we say so. This is a philosophy of religion, and you must show your entire proof. Which is greatly lacking, and if I may say so, you'd be hard pressed to present your proof based on the wording of the Gospels.

You are not talking to suckling babies here, Nick_A. You are talking to adults. We don't buy just any old fairy tale you come up with and of which you declare is the absolute truth. You have to try harder, if you want to make an argument, and an argument that sticks. You merely spew your own fantasies of what the Gospels say, without any reference to the real words of the Gospels. (Careful: I did not say "real meaning". I said "real words". Big difference. Please make note of that difference before you proceed any further, and please don't do a Strawman.)

[Dontaskme]

What would you say is the purpose of the Gospels? Is it supposed to serve the intellectual purpose like a physics text book would or is its purpose to convey psychological meaning that is beyond the limits of literal reason like a work of fine art would?

Isn't life a test by god that it presents to people? according to Christian myth.

So why are you objecting when one wants to find answers to the test?

Huh?

If christianity is a myth, then there is no test....test means to testify, to bear witness to yourself. To know you exist. And it stops right there. (this knowing presence is uncreated, unknown)

Everything else is story. So you already have all your answers to your questions as you are your own witness to your ideas, where on earth do you think conceptual ideas come from but from yourself? Questions can only arise to the sense of a separate self, so since you've already created yourself ..your questions must also have the answers too, else the questions wouldn't have arisen.

I really do not understand why humans choose to complicate the hell out of their lives, the rest of nature doesn't do this, this is unique to the human mind..because the mind is the generator of story telling...it makes up a story then searches within that story through the mechanism that made up the story looking for the answers to the story that it made up...that's the crazy dilemma of human thinking, it's the silliness of oneness pretending to be two.

Creating any concept is going to create it's opposite...if one alludes to being happy or loving, then they will live in fear of losing it, they will never be truly happy, because to create happy is to create it's opposite, else how would it be known?

Or if one believes there is misery and suffering in the world, then it's because they have experienced the opposite. So in effect, you can't have one without the opposite.

But the surprising thing is.. what you are essentially, has no opposite...how can it? ...so why the test? ..only you create heaven or hell, as believed, it is the story you tell yourself, ...you don't have to believe the story, you can rest in the non-conceptual presence of your true being, and allow the story to be what it is...aka a fiction.

You do not have to believe you exist, you are already self evident. You are..but you don't know what or who you are.. or why you are.. or where you are from..or where you are going...that's where belief comes in...there simply is no story of you..aka the separate ''me'' without the belief.

.

So I don't get what you are actually wanting to argue over, but then I guess I don't really get anything that is of the human mind most if not all the time anyway.

Change begins with you, inside of you...not out-there.

What do you want, what ever you want, then the universe will grant it with a big fat yes every time, so be careful that what you want is really what you want, and don't forget the opposite is also included in the price of that wanting.

.

[Dontaskme]

This is a nice theory, Nick_A, except I don't buy it. I don't buy it, because this is not at all how I see the Gospels. You just gave me YOUR version of how to read the Gospels, and you are adamant your version is the true one, but on a logical basis you can't prove it.

You are a great believer, but this is not a forum to convince each other of our own beliefs just because we say so. This is a philosophy of religion, and you must show your entire proof. Which is greatly lacking, and if I may say so, you'd be hard pressed to present your proof based on the wording of the Gospels.

You are not talking to suckling babies here, Nick_A. You are talking to adults. We don't buy just any old fairy tale you come up with and of which you declare is the absolute truth. You have to try harder, if you want to make an argument, and an argument that sticks.

Not defending anything here, just pointing out the silliness of the human BS (belief structures) and the conditions they artificially create.

There is no one to prove the absolute truth.

You cannot prove the absolute truth, You are the absolute truth. No proof necessary. The proof is in the pudding, it's self evident. To prove the proof would require another prover. Presence has no opposite...it's all one, there is nothing outside of the absolute.

What ever you are reading into will always be a belief about that reading, we are all the same one reader...while the interpretations will differ according to the belief...so you cannot say that another mans belief is not true, or that your's is the only true belief, you can't deny a mans belief while holding to your own...this is silly, and to top the silliness even further would be to ask yourself, why would anyone believe in that which is just a fairy story anyway?

.

[Nick_A]

-1-

The Gospels can be read literally and psychologically as well

You are a great believer, but this is not a forum to convince each other of our own beliefs just because we say so. This is a philosophy of religion, and you must show your entire proof. Which is greatly lacking, and if I may say so, you'd be hard pressed to present your proof based on the wording of the Gospels

.

Proof is personal. You can only verify the human condition as it exists in you. Awakening and Christian rebirth begins with the premise that we live in imagination as described in Plato’s cave allegory. You have to verify for yourself if it pertains to you.

If this is true then as is said, it is self defeating to put new wine into old bottles. You have to verify that you live in habitual patterns (old bottles) and must experience life in a new way free of submitting to dominant preconceptions.

Next you have to verify if you are the wretched man as described by Paul in Romans 7:

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

I have verified that this is how it is with me. I am not master of myself but rather have been mastered by acquired habits. Becoming the New Man or even what Einstein described as the Cosmic Man requires becoming master of oneself. You have to verify if this basic opposition is true within you.

Then you have to decide if you prefer living with eternal arguments over opinions and negative emotions providing your need for meaning or if they have become inadequate. You have to verify what you need. If the World is sufficient then let it be and just go with the flow. The Gospels are for those who need more than what the world can provide.

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

It is obvious that there is no indoctrination here. It is up to you to verify if the human condition as it exists in you is true or not. Then you need to admit what you need. The purpose of the Gospels is to stimulate awakening but if you don’t want it, and the world supplies sufficient meaning for you. why bother with the Gospels?