OK :-) I understand. peace & Love
On May 17, 3:32 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
