yes...that is a problem...although one can lead a horse to water they cannot make it drink...in this case, sometimes the water is hard to find, let alone drink.
On Apr 28, 9:38 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > I just responded on the discussion of 'opinion or bias', "definition > and/or point of view fuel all arguments". > I think the personal religion defines and is one's point of view of > 'spiritual'. > Spiritual is ones developed or accepted interpretation of the contact > with the collective intelligence. > I know what you are talking about when you say spiritual joy. I call > it connecting to the collective intelligence, and it is exactly the > same 'thing'. > Christians, Buddhist, Muslims and free thinking spiritualist such as > yourself all have the same 'thing' as the substance of their beliefs. > > The problem that I think we need to solve is how to make that 'thing', > known as 'common', amongst mankind. > > peace & Love > > On Apr 28, 8:47 pm, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > as you have mentioned, the nuances of individual spiritual experiences > > are as varied as the number of people who have experienced them. some > > may exclude anothers 'personal religion' if they want, but i dont > > believe most spirit-humans do so. my experiences have little to do > > with human life, so sharing them is not only difficult to do, but most > > people you try to describe them to think you are from another planet. > > i dont think many people who have experienced spiritual joy will > > disregard similar experiences of others, but will gladly share in the > > others joy. this may not be described exactly as 'unity', but it is a > > nice community experience. > > > On Apr 28, 7:22 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My take on the Dali Lama crying when he was asked if there was an easy > > > way to enlightenment sets the stage. > > > > Dali cried because he knows that the way to enlightenment is too > > > difficult, for enough of mankind to learn, and would never be able to > > > bring about the transcendence that Buddhism seeks as its flavor of > > > Unity. > > > > Why is it that all the great minds of our time and those of history > > > all converge on the fact that the power for solving all of the > > > problems of the world is within the mind of mankind, but none have > > > been able to affect the ways of mankind to bring about any significant > > > change? > > > The power connection in the mind has many different descriptions of it > > > and directions on how to access it. It can be simply a magnificent > > > light and it can be Jesus in all his glory. And it is exactly what it > > > is according to whoever is describing it. It is a real thing and > > > that’s the description that is available from previous information > > > that has been incorporated into the belief structure of the > > > individual. > > > It is energy. It is indescribable. But it is such a wonderful thing > > > that we have to describe it so we can claim it as ours. The method of > > > description is metaphor, using that which is familiar to us. > > > It is a resource for the individual to connect with the collective > > > intelligence. > > > When we connect with it we get a personal charge, it is a personal > > > thing, the opposite of a Unity thing. > > > We have gone to it (possibly only subconsciously), identified it and > > > made it our personal knowing and understanding justifier, establishing > > > our personal religion. And we exclude anything that is not in line > > > with our personal religion. > > > This is not the way to Unity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
