OK
On May 17, 3:02 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Molly,
>
> You would become unstumped if you could acknowledge that the 'secret
> place in your mind' that justifies all of your spiritual beliefs is
> common to and supports others, in their differing spiritual and non-
> spiritual beliefs.
>
> peace & Love
>
> On May 17, 2:47 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I can communicate with you, tinker, if you see me as
> > wanting to put blame on you so I can refuse to acknowledge anything.
> > I suggest we leave it alone for now. I don't know how to talk to
> > you. I am stumped.
>
> > On May 17, 2:04 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I agree with the craftsmanship of the statement, it's real
> > > intellectual.
> > > It's a poor excuse for communicating an idea amongst common folk.
> > > If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS :-)
>
> > > "non dual union of sacral and secular" is some of the above
> > > referenced.
> > > The heart of the idea I present is to remove the "sacral" self-
> > > righteousness from the common link of mankind.
>
> > > I do have something here, dear molly, and you want to put the blame on
> > > me so you can refuse to acknowledge it.
> > > No approach will succeed with any who cling to the self-righteous
> > > denial of our common link.
>
> > > I asked you before, when family rescued you from answering.
> > > What do you call the connection in our mind?
>
> > > peace & Love
>
> > > On May 17, 8:10 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > "synoptic trope of the overcoming
>
> > > > > of the cesura between sacral and secular, developing this further in
> > > > > the concept of Word (Logos) made flesh."
>
> > > > By the way, this, in my humble opinion, is one of the most beautifully
> > > > crafted statements that I have seen here or anywhere on the web.
>
> > > > That said, tinker, Logos is the meaning that passes between us, and as
> > > > such, would be your symbol. The non dual union of sacral and secular
> > > > would be the Unity of your idea. The sacral (Chris' ah ha all
> > > > encompassing realization of the sacred nature of all life) might be
> > > > the subconsicous, secular (our understanding of our external world as
> > > > temporal) , conscious.
>
> > > > I am a believer in recognizing patterns that come into awareness and
> > > > this is one of the more profound for me. That is to say that you may
> > > > have something here, tinker, something timeless that is part of all of
> > > > us. It sure would be wonderful if collectively, we recognized it.
> > > > But between us friends, and I say this with all due respect, your
> > > > approach could use a little work.
>
> > > > On May 16, 5:07 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 16, 10:25 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Nicely done, Francis.
>
> > > > > > "synoptic trope of the overcoming
> > > > > > of the cesura between sacral and secular, developing this further in
> > > > > > the concept of Word (Logos) made flesh."
>
> > > > > > I wonder if this is something of what tinker was trying to express.
>
> > > > > Molly, please tell me how you would make a connection to anything that
> > > > > I've said from that statement.
>
> > > > > peace & Love
>
> > > > > On May 16, 10:25 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Nicely done, Francis.
>
> > > > > > "synoptic trope of the overcoming
> > > > > > of the cesura between sacral and secular, developing this further in
> > > > > > the concept of Word (Logos) made flesh."
>
> > > > > > I wonder if this is something of what tinker was trying to express.
>
> > > > > > It is interesting to me that when most people think of the anger of
> > > > > > Jesus in the biblical stories, this is the one they come up with.
> > > > > > Are
> > > > > > there others?
>
> > > > > > Anger moving between the sacral (I am assuming your meaning here is
> > > > > > sacred, and not referring to a vertebrate) and secular (external or
> > > > > > temporal world) might still honor the sanctity of the temple (our
> > > > > > body
> > > > > > or self) if it also honored the sacral, secular and possibly even
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > cesura (still point.) There are many schools of thought based on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > ideas that feeling is what moves thought into manifestation. A
> > > > > > couple
> > > > > > of contemporaries are Gregg Braden and Neville Goddard.
>
> > > > > > I like to distinguish between feeling and emotion, feeling being
> > > > > > pure
> > > > > > and from the heart, emotion being more complex and carrying the past
> > > > > > events where we felt the feeling - the template stored in ego. I
> > > > > > think that e's idea of self examination (even witnessing ourselves
> > > > > > while we are having the feeling) can stop us from expressing the
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > ego based emotion and make way for a purity of feeling.
>
> > > > > > I know some rageaholics who will fly of the handle with anger often
> > > > > > and unexpectedly. I don't know if they enjoy it or if it has become
> > > > > > second nature to them, a reactionary way of life that involves
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > or no self examination.
>
> > > > > > We do all seem to experience anger. I have known it to be expressed
> > > > > > with respect for all involved parties. I have known it to do a
> > > > > > great
> > > > > > deal of damage to relationships and lives as it is expressed with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > intent to destroy, resulting in, at the very least, the need for
> > > > > > distance and loss of trust and respect. Ultimately, we can choose
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > we process all of our emotions including love and anger, and how we
> > > > > > express them. Or allow our egos to do this work for us, reacting
> > > > > > instead of responding to our experience.
>
> > > > > > On May 16, 8:21 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > :-) Hey, it's been decades since I've done this proto-Marxist,
> > > > > > > liberal, liberation-theology infuenced, biblical exegesis kind of
> > > > > > > stuff - I suppose there just some things that atomatically come
> > > > > > > back
> > > > > > > to you ...!
>
> > > > > > > On 16 Mai, 14:14, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 16 Mai, 12:44, e_space <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Jesus displayed righteous
>
> > > > > > > > > indignation when "barbarians" were using a "holy temple" as a
> > > > > > > > > place to
> > > > > > > > > ply their trades. Lets think about this for a moment. Does it
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > matter where one makes their gold from selling frankincense
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > myrrh?
>
> > > > > > > > > First of all, if "god" created heaven and earth, then all
> > > > > > > > > places on
> > > > > > > > > earth are holy. Secondly, Jesus didn't design or build the
> > > > > > > > > temple,
> > > > > > > > > wasn't a member of it, and really had no business telling the
> > > > > > > > > merchants what to do there. NO place is holier than another,
> > > > > > > > > except in
> > > > > > > > > perception, which of course motives a large percentage of
> > > > > > > > > homo-
> > > > > > > > > sapians,
>
> > > > > > > > On a point of fact, e, your exegesis of this event, is based on
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > factually false impression of the backround of and the actual
> > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > involved in the cleansing of the temple, the earliest
> > > > > > > > description of
> > > > > > > > which can be found in Mark 11:15-19 (the story is also told in
> > > > > > > > Mt
> > > > > > > > 21:12-17, Lk 19:45-48, Jn 2:14-16). The general consensus is
> > > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > given the presence of congruent narratives in all the first
> > > > > > > > sources,
> > > > > > > > the story has a pretty firm grounding in the earliest
> > > > > > > > traditions and
> > > > > > > > has a high likelihood of factual origins.
>
> > > > > > > > The basic point is that the Temple system was a massive
> > > > > > > > parasitic rip-
> > > > > > > > off machine. The High Priests nominated the Temple area as
> > > > > > > > sacrally
> > > > > > > > holy ground, which would prohibit the exercise of commerce
> > > > > > > > within its
> > > > > > > > presincts. Given that Jews saw themselves as divinely obliged
> > > > > > > > to make
> > > > > > > > pilgrimage to the Temple and sacrifice there, this was an
> > > > > > > > inconvenience to those who wished to purchase sacrificial
> > > > > > > > animals (the
> > > > > > > > weren't always killed - doves were released) on the spot. The
> > > > > > > > priests
> > > > > > > > upped the ante however; sacrificial animals had to be certified
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > purity. So you either had to buy a certificate of purity on the
> > > > > > > > spot,
> > > > > > > > or buy a ritually certified as pure, also on the spot. But
> > > > > > > > commerce
> > > > > > > > was forbidden on the Mount. No problem, you just had to
> > > > > > > > establish a
> > > > > > > > ritually pure temple currency - with these coins you could then
> > > > > > > > trade
> > > > > > > > in the Temple area. So you had to have ritual money-changers.
> > > > > > > > Certified as ritually pure, of course. And who did all the
> > > > > > > > certification? Right, the priests.
>
> > > > > > > > This is the kind of scheme worthy of comparison with Newman and
> > > > > > > > Redford in "the Sting." With the difference that it was
> > > > > > > > completely
> > > > > > > > legal, not subject to any outside interest and completely in
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > face. And this was the system which got Jesus pissed. This is
> > > > > > > > certainly the point emphasised in the synoptic stories. It was a
> > > > > > > > strike against exploitative corruption and also against -
> > > > > > > > rather than
> > > > > > > > in favour of, as you claim - the separation of the sacral from
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > secular world. One of Jesus' central teachings was the
> > > > > > > > overcoming of
> > > > > > > > the sacral-secular duality - everything is sacred; so there's no
> > > > > > > > reason to prohibit the use of ordinary money on the Temple
> > > > > > > > Mount.
>
> > > > > > > > The Johannine version (written 70 years after the events they
> > > > > > > > described and a result of intensive meditation on, discussive
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > reworking of the tradition [under strong influence of other
> > > > > > > > philosophical and religious traditions]) goes on with deeper
> > > > > > > > symbolism
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
