As I said, Lee, a revelation is more than a feeling. And living what is true is more than saying or seeing or understanding what is. The revelation takes you to a state of what is. When you experience it, then the knowing and the feeling and the understanding are all included.
If you are looking for a formula to define for you what is true and what is untrue, you may be disappointed. Once you stop seeking the truth, and allow the truth to become all that is, you will know. And the words of others that point to the truth will live in you and for you. On Feb 24, 9:52 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > I get this Molly, but can't help but think how did you come by this > knowledge, and how do you know it is truthfull? > > You quote the words of another yet say that validation for such > belifes and feelings come from within, or more properly the divine > within you. As I asked OM, how did you come by this knowledge? How > do you know it is correct? > > If any person can merely procliam as truth whatever they will based on > an internal feeling, then the world would be in a state. My religoin > also teaches us to question, so here I am questioning, it just not > sound right to me, blind faith, I'll never have that, belifes backedup > by nowt more than an internal feeling, nope not my cup of tea. > > On 24 Feb, 13:57, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Here is a quote from the mystic Krishnamurti that may or may not clear > > things up: > > > The religious mind is something entirely different from the mind that > > believes in religion. You cannot be religious and yet be a Hindu, a > > Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist. A religious mind does not seek at > > all, it cannot experiment with truth. Truth is not something dictated > > by your pleasure or pain, or by your conditioning as a Hindu or > > whatever religion you belong to. The religious mind is a state of mind > > in which there is no fear and therefore no belief whatsoever but only > > what is -what actually is. - Freedom from the Known The Second Penguin > > Krishnamurti Reader > > > I think what he is pointing to is that there is a difference between > > reading the word of God, reiterating those words, understanding those > > words, and LIVING those words. Agape is the word for the love of God > > - differentiated from love between men. However, I believe that we > > are capable of agape, the unconditional love (and forgiveness) that > > has no form or condition, it just is. > > > I think that you come close to the answer to your question, Lee, when > > you touch on the notion of revelation. The blaze of light in every > > word (leonard cohen) is our own revelation with it, that makes the > > difference between the "holy or the broken > > hallelujah."http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/leonardcohen/hallelujah.html > > > Faith requires intospection and self reflection. Every faith I know > > of points us to stepping outside of our ego and identity and into the > > larger unity of life. In terms of knowing whether or not a message > > truly comes from God, this is revealed to you as an internal process > > wherein you realize the state that IS God. When this happens, there > > is no mistaking it. You will be in the state of "what is," more than > > knowing emotionally or intellectually, without but including those > > conditions. > > > It is my experience that everything that crosses my consciousness has > > my consent and is a message from God in that it points the way for me > > to greater self realization. That part of me that is God, loves with > > agape, all that I experience. recognizes all life as sacred, and all > > messages as from God. That part of me, or the state, that places a > > greater or lesser value on messages, that seeks to know, that likes > > and doesn''t like, these are my human states. And like chaotic creams > > without lucidity they come and go now and then. And they always have > > messages that point me back to the state of "what is," if I have the > > wisdom to recognize them. If I am hearing the holy, and not the > > broken, hallelujah. > > > On Feb 24, 5:10 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hah food for thought indeed fids. > > > > Note the very first words of the quote you suppied, what do they > > > suggest to you? > > > > Hardly any major religion must imply that at least one major religion > > > has done so. Given that then can we conclude that whichever religion > > > it was must have a ring of at least honesty if not truth about it? > > > > Thanks Fidss, food for thought indeed. > > > > As to mean, we all find that in strange and wonderful places. Criket, > > > not my bag man, which means I don't understand why Neil loves it so. > > > I do understand that he does though, and that is enough for me. I > > > have said it before and I'll carry on mate until it seeps in. People > > > are differant, the whole world over. > > > > You find no merit in religoin, fine, I really don't mind, it's your > > > life, your choices. Now can you say the same for me? > > > > On 24 Feb, 02:21, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > But then worshipping such a god would have no meaning or purpose and > > > > every religion thus far would be false. This is the deist attitude > > > > btw, one that holds to god(s) being irrelevant and/or absent. > > > > > Food for thought: > > > > > "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and > > > > concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much > > > > bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? > > > > Instead they say,'No, no, no! My god is a little god and I want him to > > > > stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence > > > > of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw > > > > forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional > > > > faiths." > > > > > Carl Sagan > > > > > Pale Blue Dot > > > > > On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I am largley unconcered about that one Fidds. > > > > > > I would expect a God who grants free will, and takes no action towards > > > > > the happening on this planet (as is my belife) to let us discover > > > > > these sorts of things in our own time. > > > > > > On 23 Feb, 16:01, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > You have hit on the exact problem of religion in general. It never > > > > > > transcends the culture it is invented in. In these "divine" > > > > > > occurrences there is never any medical knowledge beyond what is > > > > > > already known, no technology, and linguistically identical to the > > > > > > culture and often regarded as the only "true" language that it must > > > > > > be > > > > > > read in, etc.. > > > > > > The values of the god in question are also shockingly similar to the > > > > > > prophets involved. A small band of unhappy Canaanites invented a god > > > > > > that allowed them to conquer their region and put nearly everyone to > > > > > > the sword as well as justifying the kidnap and rape of any women > > > > > > they > > > > > > want. A gold-digging, illiterate teamster invented a god that > > > > > > allowed > > > > > > him power and prestige, as well as pre-pubescent girls. > > > > > > > Sadly, none of these people can invent gods that impart previously > > > > > > unknown ideas. Can you imagine if a god did exist, and told people > > > > > > in > > > > > > a book how to treat an infection? The dark ages might well have been > > > > > > averted in Europe if not for the christians insisting that demons > > > > > > were > > > > > > responsible for sickness (and elves, witches, neighbours, pagans, > > > > > > atheists, cats, trees, etc.). Or the advances that we might have > > > > > > enjoyed technologically if religions didn't burn the books of those > > > > > > that came before them and murder anyone that bucks the servility > > > > > > concept in order to invent or discover? Or how united the world > > > > > > would > > > > > > be if a god's words could be read by anyone and every language and > > > > > > people were accorded equal weight and respect? > > > > > > > Instead, every religion is filled with the ignorant mutterings of > > > > > > whomever invents them. Some even take a step backward when knowledge > > > > > > available elsewhere is unknown to the "prophet" and so dismissed > > > > > > when > > > > > > encountered. > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 3:19 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > So you Atheists can of course get involded in this one, I really > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > know why you should or what the interest for you would be, but do > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > free. > > > > > > > > I was thinking the other day about religion and culture. I'm > > > > > > > somewhat > > > > > > > worried about how to seperate the message of God from that of man. > > > > > > > > So it suddenly struck me that any message that truely comes from > > > > > > > God > > > > > > > must trancend culture. > > > > > > > > Thoughts?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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.
