Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
See John 10. The Good Shepherd. The sheep know the voice of their shepherd and come when called. From: "olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 5:59 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field? Yeah, there is a lot of stuff hidden in the Bible that only comes to light with pure consciousness, and if the expression, 'knowledge is structured in consciousness', holds, that carries a lot of potential for disagreement with it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Ollie, You're right in saying. Catholics believe that the bread and wine becomes transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. But my point in this discussion is that Jesus was telling the disciples that the bread and wine are his body and blood because as Being Himself, Jesus is in everything and everyone. So, the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Also, Jesus was literally telling the disciples the advanced knowledge that the universe is based on Being or pure consciousness. But I would assume some Catholic theologians would disagree with this interpretation because the idea has a trace of pantheism in it. I think that's the reason why Catholic thinkers like Teilhard Chardin and Thomas Merton have gotten in trouble with the conservatives in the Catholic Church. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Actually, the key distinction between the Episcopalian Church and the Catholic Church is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby the offering of the host and wine by the priest during Holy Communion is miraculously transformed into the actual blood and body of Christ within the one taking Communion. In the Episcopal Church it remains symbolic, as unleavened bread and wine. So it is not really an optional belief among Catholics, but a key tenet of the faith. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Hi all,First time responder here. This is an area I have been drawn to and fascinated by my whole adult life. So I had to say something. Sorry in advance if I offend anyone. That is not my intention. Any opinion on the Catholic Eucharist is of course worthy. But saying "If one were to truly count oneself a 'true Catholic' then one does believe the reality of that flesh and blood that becomes transformed during Mass" is not all that accurate. If you want to know what the essential Catholic understanding about the holy sacraments is, you go to someone like St. Augustine, one of the most revered of the great Church Fathers. His famous definition of a holy sacrament: "The outward, visible sign of an inward, spiritual process." Believing that the bread and wine they serve at Mass actually transforms into the body and blood of Jesus Christ is like believing there really was a physical Ark that housed and preserved all living things of earth, or that the universe was created in 7 actual earth days. Of course, on one level of consciousness everything is experienced as bliss consciousness. But then what would be so unique about the bread and wine they serve at Catholic mass? l've received holy communion in catholic mass many, many times and it never had any spiritual effect on me at all. That's not because I didn't believe. It's because I wasn't really transcending. I wasn't consuming real bliss consciousness. I was only participating in a representation of the process of Yoga or Union with the divine. Think about how secretive Jesus was about the knowledge? He tells his closest disciples...“It has been given to you to know the secret of the Kingdom of God, but to those others, it is spoken in an allegory, that while seeing they will not perceive, and when hearing, they will not understand.” (Luke 8:10) I believe Jesus taught his closest disciples some kind of TM technique and a more advanced knowledge that he was not willing to share with the general public. This kind of secrecy persisted in the Catholic church and was the foundation for the implementation of the holy sacraments, so that everyone could get some exposure to the sacred knowledge without the risk of giving them a direct knowledge they were not properly prepared to receive. MMY, some would say, was not so careful with the knowledge, which led to more than a few unfortunate consequences, but also some great consequences. For instance, it gave a young teenage slob like myself (back in the mid-1970's) an opportunity for spiritual growth and understanding that has been a real blessing in my life. I also believe that, aside from the secrecy element, the sacraments serve to draw our awareness to the most sacred concepts or articles of the Christian faith. "Do this in memory of Me" Jesus said at the Last Super, according to the Priest during Catholic Eucharist. So, the Euchar
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Yeah, there is a lot of stuff hidden in the Bible that only comes to light with pure consciousness, and if the expression, 'knowledge is structured in consciousness', holds, that carries a lot of potential for disagreement with it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Ollie, You're right in saying. Catholics believe that the bread and wine becomes transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. But my point in this discussion is that Jesus was telling the disciples that the bread and wine are his body and blood because as Being Himself, Jesus is in everything and everyone. So, the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Also, Jesus was literally telling the disciples the advanced knowledge that the universe is based on Being or pure consciousness. But I would assume some Catholic theologians would disagree with this interpretation because the idea has a trace of pantheism in it. I think that's the reason why Catholic thinkers like Teilhard Chardin and Thomas Merton have gotten in trouble with the conservatives in the Catholic Church. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Actually, the key distinction between the Episcopalian Church and the Catholic Church is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby the offering of the host and wine by the priest during Holy Communion is miraculously transformed into the actual blood and body of Christ within the one taking Communion. In the Episcopal Church it remains symbolic, as unleavened bread and wine. So it is not really an optional belief among Catholics, but a key tenet of the faith. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Hi all, First time responder here. This is an area I have been drawn to and fascinated by my whole adult life. So I had to say something. Sorry in advance if I offend anyone. That is not my intention. Any opinion on the Catholic Eucharist is of course worthy. But saying "If one were to truly count oneself a 'true Catholic' then one does believe the reality of that flesh and blood that becomes transformed during Mass" is not all that accurate. If you want to know what the essential Catholic understanding about the holy sacraments is, you go to someone like St. Augustine, one of the most revered of the great Church Fathers. His famous definition of a holy sacrament: "The outward, visible sign of an inward, spiritual process." Believing that the bread and wine they serve at Mass actually transforms into the body and blood of Jesus Christ is like believing there really was a physical Ark that housed and preserved all living things of earth, or that the universe was created in 7 actual earth days. Of course, on one level of consciousness everything is experienced as bliss consciousness. But then what would be so unique about the bread and wine they serve at Catholic mass? l've received holy communion in catholic mass many, many times and it never had any spiritual effect on me at all. That's not because I didn't believe. It's because I wasn't really transcending. I wasn't consuming real bliss consciousness. I was only participating in a representation of the process of Yoga or Union with the divine. Think about how secretive Jesus was about the knowledge? He tells his closest disciples... “It has been given to you to know the secret of the Kingdom of God, but to those others, it is spoken in an allegory, that while seeing they will not perceive, and when hearing, they will not understand.” (Luke 8:10) I believe Jesus taught his closest disciples some kind of TM technique and a more advanced knowledge that he was not willing to share with the general public. This kind of secrecy persisted in the Catholic church and was the foundation for the implementation of the holy sacraments, so that everyone could get some exposure to the sacred knowledge without the risk of giving them a direct knowledge they were not properly prepared to receive. MMY, some would say, was not so careful with the knowledge, which led to more than a few unfortunate consequences, but also some great consequences. For instance, it gave a young teenage slob like myself (back in the mid-1970's) an opportunity for spiritual growth and understanding that has been a real blessing in my life. I also believe that, aside from the secrecy element, the sacraments serve to draw our awareness to the most sacred concepts or articles of the Christian faith. "Do this in memory of Me" Jesus said at the Last Super, according to the Priest during Catholic Eucharist. So, the Eucharist is not merely a symbol. It also has real utility. However, that utility is nowhere near that of real transcendence or real Unity consciousness. Jesus advised his followers to pray in private, behind closed doors. Mass is a sort of, kind of representation, but NOT the real deal. Transcendence IS possible during Mass, especially during the Eucharist, which is presented solemnly and ritual
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Ollie, You're right in saying. Catholics believe that the bread and wine becomes transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. But my point in this discussion is that Jesus was telling the disciples that the bread and wine are his body and blood because as Being Himself, Jesus is in everything and everyone. So, the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Also, Jesus was literally telling the disciples the advanced knowledge that the universe is based on Being or pure consciousness. But I would assume some Catholic theologians would disagree with this interpretation because the idea has a trace of pantheism in it. I think that's the reason why Catholic thinkers like Teilhard Chardin and Thomas Merton have gotten in trouble with the conservatives in the Catholic Church. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Actually, the key distinction between the Episcopalian Church and the Catholic Church is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby the offering of the host and wine by the priest during Holy Communion is miraculously transformed into the actual blood and body of Christ within the one taking Communion. In the Episcopal Church it remains symbolic, as unleavened bread and wine. So it is not really an optional belief among Catholics, but a key tenet of the faith. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Hi all, First time responder here. This is an area I have been drawn to and fascinated by my whole adult life. So I had to say something. Sorry in advance if I offend anyone. That is not my intention. Any opinion on the Catholic Eucharist is of course worthy. But saying "If one were to truly count oneself a 'true Catholic' then one does believe the reality of that flesh and blood that becomes transformed during Mass" is not all that accurate. If you want to know what the essential Catholic understanding about the holy sacraments is, you go to someone like St. Augustine, one of the most revered of the great Church Fathers. His famous definition of a holy sacrament: "The outward, visible sign of an inward, spiritual process." Believing that the bread and wine they serve at Mass actually transforms into the body and blood of Jesus Christ is like believing there really was a physical Ark that housed and preserved all living things of earth, or that the universe was created in 7 actual earth days. Of course, on one level of consciousness everything is experienced as bliss consciousness. But then what would be so unique about the bread and wine they serve at Catholic mass? l've received holy communion in catholic mass many, many times and it never had any spiritual effect on me at all. That's not because I didn't believe. It's because I wasn't really transcending. I wasn't consuming real bliss consciousness. I was only participating in a representation of the process of Yoga or Union with the divine. Think about how secretive Jesus was about the knowledge? He tells his closest disciples... “It has been given to you to know the secret of the Kingdom of God, but to those others, it is spoken in an allegory, that while seeing they will not perceive, and when hearing, they will not understand.” (Luke 8:10) I believe Jesus taught his closest disciples some kind of TM technique and a more advanced knowledge that he was not willing to share with the general public. This kind of secrecy persisted in the Catholic church and was the foundation for the implementation of the holy sacraments, so that everyone could get some exposure to the sacred knowledge without the risk of giving them a direct knowledge they were not properly prepared to receive. MMY, some would say, was not so careful with the knowledge, which led to more than a few unfortunate consequences, but also some great consequences. For instance, it gave a young teenage slob like myself (back in the mid-1970's) an opportunity for spiritual growth and understanding that has been a real blessing in my life. I also believe that, aside from the secrecy element, the sacraments serve to draw our awareness to the most sacred concepts or articles of the Christian faith. "Do this in memory of Me" Jesus said at the Last Super, according to the Priest during Catholic Eucharist. So, the Eucharist is not merely a symbol. It also has real utility. However, that utility is nowhere near that of real transcendence or real Unity consciousness. Jesus advised his followers to pray in private, behind closed doors. Mass is a sort of, kind of representation, but NOT the real deal. Transcendence IS possible during Mass, especially during the Eucharist, which is presented solemnly and ritualistically, almost hypnotically. But fine art, or really lots of different conditions or situations could also be somewhat conducive for Transcendence. None of them really compare, however, to the ideal of sitting quietly in a peaceful environment, practicing an ancient technique d
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Actually, the key distinction between the Episcopalian Church and the Catholic Church is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby the offering of the host and wine by the priest during Holy Communion is miraculously transformed into the actual blood and body of Christ within the one taking Communion. In the Episcopal Church it remains symbolic, as unleavened bread and wine. So it is not really an optional belief among Catholics, but a key tenet of the faith. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Hi all, First time responder here. This is an area I have been drawn to and fascinated by my whole adult life. So I had to say something. Sorry in advance if I offend anyone. That is not my intention. Any opinion on the Catholic Eucharist is of course worthy. But saying "If one were to truly count oneself a 'true Catholic' then one does believe the reality of that flesh and blood that becomes transformed during Mass" is not all that accurate. If you want to know what the essential Catholic understanding about the holy sacraments is, you go to someone like St. Augustine, one of the most revered of the great Church Fathers. His famous definition of a holy sacrament: "The outward, visible sign of an inward, spiritual process." Believing that the bread and wine they serve at Mass actually transforms into the body and blood of Jesus Christ is like believing there really was a physical Ark that housed and preserved all living things of earth, or that the universe was created in 7 actual earth days. Of course, on one level of consciousness everything is experienced as bliss consciousness. But then what would be so unique about the bread and wine they serve at Catholic mass? l've received holy communion in catholic mass many, many times and it never had any spiritual effect on me at all. That's not because I didn't believe. It's because I wasn't really transcending. I wasn't consuming real bliss consciousness. I was only participating in a representation of the process of Yoga or Union with the divine. Think about how secretive Jesus was about the knowledge? He tells his closest disciples... “It has been given to you to know the secret of the Kingdom of God, but to those others, it is spoken in an allegory, that while seeing they will not perceive, and when hearing, they will not understand.” (Luke 8:10) I believe Jesus taught his closest disciples some kind of TM technique and a more advanced knowledge that he was not willing to share with the general public. This kind of secrecy persisted in the Catholic church and was the foundation for the implementation of the holy sacraments, so that everyone could get some exposure to the sacred knowledge without the risk of giving them a direct knowledge they were not properly prepared to receive. MMY, some would say, was not so careful with the knowledge, which led to more than a few unfortunate consequences, but also some great consequences. For instance, it gave a young teenage slob like myself (back in the mid-1970's) an opportunity for spiritual growth and understanding that has been a real blessing in my life. I also believe that, aside from the secrecy element, the sacraments serve to draw our awareness to the most sacred concepts or articles of the Christian faith. "Do this in memory of Me" Jesus said at the Last Super, according to the Priest during Catholic Eucharist. So, the Eucharist is not merely a symbol. It also has real utility. However, that utility is nowhere near that of real transcendence or real Unity consciousness. Jesus advised his followers to pray in private, behind closed doors. Mass is a sort of, kind of representation, but NOT the real deal. Transcendence IS possible during Mass, especially during the Eucharist, which is presented solemnly and ritualistically, almost hypnotically. But fine art, or really lots of different conditions or situations could also be somewhat conducive for Transcendence. None of them really compare, however, to the ideal of sitting quietly in a peaceful environment, practicing an ancient technique designed for transcendence. Insisting on a literal interpretation of a very figuratively written scripture is like a meditator following exactly the inverse instruction for TM -- do not introduce the mantra, but do try to focus on your random thoughts and what you did that day. In either case, good luck getting to the Truth. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re "[The Eucharist] is not a symbol, it is the real thing - it is the literal flesh and blood of Christ transformed. ": Indeed, not a symbol - a concept or thought. But the literal flesh and blood are phenomenal through and through. (As are literal pines and their scent.) And all phenomena are manifestations of the noumenon (a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the sen
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Hi all, First time responder here. This is an area I have been drawn to and fascinated by my whole adult life. So I had to say something. Sorry in advance if I offend anyone. That is not my intention. Any opinion on the Catholic Eucharist is of course worthy. But saying "If one were to truly count oneself a 'true Catholic' then one does believe the reality of that flesh and blood that becomes transformed during Mass" is not all that accurate. If you want to know what the essential Catholic understanding about the holy sacraments is, you go to someone like St. Augustine, one of the most revered of the great Church Fathers. His famous definition of a holy sacrament: "The outward, visible sign of an inward, spiritual process." Believing that the bread and wine they serve at Mass actually transforms into the body and blood of Jesus Christ is like believing there really was a physical Ark that housed and preserved all living things of earth, or that the universe was created in 7 actual earth days. Of course, on one level of consciousness everything is experienced as bliss consciousness. But then what would be so unique about the bread and wine they serve at Catholic mass? l've received holy communion in catholic mass many, many times and it never had any spiritual effect on me at all. That's not because I didn't believe. It's because I wasn't really transcending. I wasn't consuming real bliss consciousness. I was only participating in a representation of the process of Yoga or Union with the divine. Think about how secretive Jesus was about the knowledge? He tells his closest disciples... “It has been given to you to know the secret of the Kingdom of God, but to those others, it is spoken in an allegory, that while seeing they will not perceive, and when hearing, they will not understand.” (Luke 8:10) I believe Jesus taught his closest disciples some kind of TM technique and a more advanced knowledge that he was not willing to share with the general public. This kind of secrecy persisted in the Catholic church and was the foundation for the implementation of the holy sacraments, so that everyone could get some exposure to the sacred knowledge without the risk of giving them a direct knowledge they were not properly prepared to receive. MMY, some would say, was not so careful with the knowledge, which led to more than a few unfortunate consequences, but also some great consequences. For instance, it gave a young teenage slob like myself (back in the mid-1970's) an opportunity for spiritual growth and understanding that has been a real blessing in my life. I also believe that, aside from the secrecy element, the sacraments serve to draw our awareness to the most sacred concepts or articles of the Christian faith. "Do this in memory of Me" Jesus said at the Last Super, according to the Priest during Catholic Eucharist. So, the Eucharist is not merely a symbol. It also has real utility. However, that utility is nowhere near that of real transcendence or real Unity consciousness. Jesus advised his followers to pray in private, behind closed doors. Mass is a sort of, kind of representation, but NOT the real deal. Transcendence IS possible during Mass, especially during the Eucharist, which is presented solemnly and ritualistically, almost hypnotically. But fine art, or really lots of different conditions or situations could also be somewhat conducive for Transcendence. None of them really compare, however, to the ideal of sitting quietly in a peaceful environment, practicing an ancient technique designed for transcendence. Insisting on a literal interpretation of a very figuratively written scripture is like a meditator following exactly the inverse instruction for TM -- do not introduce the mantra, but do try to focus on your random thoughts and what you did that day. In either case, good luck getting to the Truth. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re "[The Eucharist] is not a symbol, it is the real thing - it is the literal flesh and blood of Christ transformed. ": Indeed, not a symbol - a concept or thought. But the literal flesh and blood are phenomenal through and through. (As are literal pines and their scent.) And all phenomena are manifestations of the noumenon (a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes). So ultimately "the real thing" transcends phenomena. Hmm, so if you are right (or somebody whose thoughts you are paraphrasing here is right) then that great big beating Heart that Upfronter and I sense out there might just be real. The Eucharist essential celebrates the fact that all experience is "empty" (in the Buddhist sense). Experience being empty there is nothing left to grasp. Grasping is what the ego tries to do. Seeing that grasping is a futile exercise we die t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re "[The Eucharist] is not a symbol, it is the real thing - it is the literal flesh and blood of Christ transformed. ": Indeed, not a symbol - a concept or thought. But the literal flesh and blood are phenomenal through and through. (As are literal pines and their scent.) And all phenomena are manifestations of the noumenon (a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes). So ultimately "the real thing" transcends phenomena. Hmm, so if you are right (or somebody whose thoughts you are paraphrasing here is right) then that great big beating Heart that Upfronter and I sense out there might just be real. The Eucharist essential celebrates the fact that all experience is "empty" (in the Buddhist sense). Experience being empty there is nothing left to grasp. Grasping is what the ego tries to do. Seeing that grasping is a futile exercise we die to the ego and are reborn. I think maybe you are mixing some different religious viewpoints here - namely East and West. I have never heard the Eucharist explained like this from anyone in the Catholic Church - but that isn't to say I don't like this description. In addition, I am hardly the religious scholar seeing as I operate from the literal seat of my pants and hairs of my chinny chin chin as I weave and bob my way through the pine scented pathways and trails of this life. Robin Carlsen or Judy Stein would be far better discussion mates for you if you're looking for hard facts, interesting conjecture and intellectual counterpoints. The essence of Christianity. Wow, in the proverbial nutshell. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re "Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail": Isn't that why Christians have made the Eucharist the central part of their worship? It's just a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. I don't think that is why. I was raised Catholic and for them ( I don't consider myself a true Catholic at this point in my life), it is not a symbol, it is the real thing - it is the literal flesh and blood of Christ transformed. The point was to single out one particular phenomenon as a finger pointing at The Source of all phenomena. I'm not sure of that either, or maybe I just don't agree or maybe I don't understand what you are saying. If the Eucharist is "The Source" of all phenomena (which I don't believe it is - it is just an example of one really big way God sacrificed his flesh for us as a way to healing/forgiving/saving our imperfect selves. It isn't pointing to anything other than his givingness and our neediness. What it is, if you believe, is one phenomenon but not necessarily the source of all phenomena (although God is this source, the Eucharist is not). A noseful of pine scent would have done the job just as well! Absolutely. It is one mind-blowing example of the infinite amount of phenomena out there that surround us in this life/time. The Eucharist obviously did the trick as it has survived for millennia. It was intended to facilitate a shift in consciousness but for most Christians today it has just become either a symbol (a concept remaining at the level of our everyday thinking) or a bit of superstitious, quasi-magical mumbo-jumbo. If one were to truly count oneself a "true Catholic" then one does believe the reality of that flesh and blood that becomes transformed during Mass. It isn't mumbo jumbo and it is not a symbol. Perhaps to those not of the Catholic faith or "most Christians" it is which is a bit of a pity. I always find it tempting to go for broke - grab the really big possibility, the most mind-grabbing option and prepare to be blown away. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
The bhakti side of spiritual development is often overlooked - gets dry, old, copied down and lost. Yes, the process of continual surrender to the transcendent, the higher states of consciousness, can be focused on ourselves and others through unconditional love, sacrifice, and devotion which knows no end. It may be as simple as remembering a kindness to another or to oneself. It burns through all of our failings and weaknesses and raises us up for another day. And then over time as you say so beautifully and innocently below, a two way relationship develops with Source, inside and out, so that life is lived more as a graceful timeless dance, a service. Thank you. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I'm not going to be drawn into definitions of Self, as such, as everyone is right in the truth they have had revealed. I personally don't follow a tradition but I do have a way of enlivening my spiritual instinct, if you will. Pine scent, lovely! I think I know what you mean. It seems a little absurd to actually have an adoring love for Something you can’t see or touch. All I can say at present is that I know what human love is like and how overpowering it can be, which is why I can say that there is, in my experience, a progressive development of real permanent love for Something which to me is the Source of my existence but not only the Source but a sentient great big “Heart”. It’s the permanent part that adds to the whole deal. I know that this is not everybody’s experience so to most it would sound strange and fairy-tail like, and quite honestly I can’t believe that I’m surrendering this information to the Internet public and I’m not sure why I can’t stop myself from answering as it might seem lacking in humility or perhaps too personal to be told, and reading it through it seems to mean nothing very much. But in my opinion the Object of that love is "there and real" although extremely difficult if not impossible to envision. All I’ll say is that there is Eternity in front so it seems to me that the progressive development of sacrificial love is something which has no end. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own heart and mind that there is a God of some sort but I would much rather, am able to, adore him/her/it through him/her/its Creation? Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail or feeling a mist drench your face as you glimpse a shrouded sunrise in the early days of Autumn. But start reciting Scripture and I'm ready to bolt. Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religionist, it would appear, as shown by the attachments added to the life and death of Jesus which have culminated in various complicated doc
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Re "[The Eucharist] is not a symbol, it is the real thing - it is the literal flesh and blood of Christ transformed. ": Indeed, not a symbol - a concept or thought. But the literal flesh and blood are phenomenal through and through. (As are literal pines and their scent.) And all phenomena are manifestations of the noumenon (a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes). So ultimately "the real thing" transcends phenomena. The Eucharist essential celebrates the fact that all experience is "empty" (in the Buddhist sense). Experience being empty there is nothing left to grasp. Grasping is what the ego tries to do. Seeing that grasping is a futile exercise we die to the ego and are reborn. The essence of Christianity. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re "Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail": Isn't that why Christians have made the Eucharist the central part of their worship? It's just a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. I don't think that is why. I was raised Catholic and for them ( I don't consider myself a true Catholic at this point in my life), it is not a symbol, it is the real thing - it is the literal flesh and blood of Christ transformed. The point was to single out one particular phenomenon as a finger pointing at The Source of all phenomena. I'm not sure of that either, or maybe I just don't agree or maybe I don't understand what you are saying. If the Eucharist is "The Source" of all phenomena (which I don't believe it is - it is just an example of one really big way God sacrificed his flesh for us as a way to healing/forgiving/saving our imperfect selves. It isn't pointing to anything other than his givingness and our neediness. What it is, if you believe, is one phenomenon but not necessarily the source of all phenomena (although God is this source, the Eucharist is not). A noseful of pine scent would have done the job just as well! Absolutely. It is one mind-blowing example of the infinite amount of phenomena out there that surround us in this life/time. The Eucharist obviously did the trick as it has survived for millennia. It was intended to facilitate a shift in consciousness but for most Christians today it has just become either a symbol (a concept remaining at the level of our everyday thinking) or a bit of superstitious, quasi-magical mumbo-jumbo. If one were to truly count oneself a "true Catholic" then one does believe the reality of that flesh and blood that becomes transformed during Mass. It isn't mumbo jumbo and it is not a symbol. Perhaps to those not of the Catholic faith or "most Christians" it is which is a bit of a pity. I always find it tempting to go for broke - grab the really big possibility, the most mind-grabbing option and prepare to be blown away. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own heart and mind that there is a God of some sort but I would much rather, am able to, adore him/her/it through him/her/its Creation? Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail or feeling a mist drench your face as you glimpse a shrouded sunrise in the early days of Autumn. But start reciting Scripture and I'm ready to bolt. Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later giv
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I'm not going to be drawn into definitions of Self, as such, as everyone is right in the truth they have had revealed. I personally don't follow a tradition but I do have a way of enlivening my spiritual instinct, if you will. Pine scent, lovely! I think I know what you mean. It seems a little absurd to actually have an adoring love for Something you can’t see or touch. All I can say at present is that I know what human love is like and how overpowering it can be, which is why I can say that there is, in my experience, a progressive development of real permanent love for Something which to me is the Source of my existence but not only the Source but a sentient great big “Heart”. It’s the permanent part that adds to the whole deal. I know that this is not everybody’s experience so to most it would sound strange and fairy-tail like, and quite honestly I can’t believe that I’m surrendering this information to the Internet public and I’m not sure why I can’t stop myself from answering as it might seem lacking in humility or perhaps too personal to be told, and reading it through it seems to mean nothing very much. But in my opinion the Object of that love is "there and real" although extremely difficult if not impossible to envision. All I’ll say is that there is Eternity in front so it seems to me that the progressive development of sacrificial love is something which has no end. This is a great little post you made. What resonates with me is what I have highlighted in pink. My experience, too, is that there is a great big sentient Heart out there. It has revealed itself to me at various times during my life and, in fact, my whole time as Ann on this planet has been especially blessed and unique. I have known uncertainty, a depth of sorrow that was seemingly bottomless as well as bombshell fear and paralyzing fallibility and yet through all of that I was able to discern this "Heart". And I think, that many would have had similar experience which is not religion based or book learned. It isn't an idea - it is visceral. The "big Heart" is there in some fundamentally primordial way that keeps beating even as the sighs, the screams and the moaning seeks to drown it out. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own heart and mind that there is a God of some sort but I would much rather, am able to, adore him/her/it through him/her/its Creation? Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail or feeling a mist drench your face as you glimpse a shrouded sunrise in the early days of Autumn. But start reciting Scripture and I'm ready to bolt. Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religio
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Re "Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail": Isn't that why Christians have made the Eucharist the central part of their worship? It's just a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. I don't think that is why. I was raised Catholic and for them ( I don't consider myself a true Catholic at this point in my life), it is not a symbol, it is the real thing - it is the literal flesh and blood of Christ transformed. The point was to single out one particular phenomenon as a finger pointing at The Source of all phenomena. I'm not sure of that either, or maybe I just don't agree or maybe I don't understand what you are saying. If the Eucharist is "The Source" of all phenomena (which I don't believe it is - it is just an example of one really big way God sacrificed his flesh for us as a way to healing/forgiving/saving our imperfect selves. It isn't pointing to anything other than his givingness and our neediness. What it is, if you believe, is one phenomenon but not necessarily the source of all phenomena (although God is this source, the Eucharist is not). A noseful of pine scent would have done the job just as well! Absolutely. It is one mind-blowing example of the infinite amount of phenomena out there that surround us in this life/time. The Eucharist obviously did the trick as it has survived for millennia. It was intended to facilitate a shift in consciousness but for most Christians today it has just become either a symbol (a concept remaining at the level of our everyday thinking) or a bit of superstitious, quasi-magical mumbo-jumbo. If one were to truly count oneself a "true Catholic" then one does believe the reality of that flesh and blood that becomes transformed during Mass. It isn't mumbo jumbo and it is not a symbol. Perhaps to those not of the Catholic faith or "most Christians" it is which is a bit of a pity. I always find it tempting to go for broke - grab the really big possibility, the most mind-grabbing option and prepare to be blown away. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own heart and mind that there is a God of some sort but I would much rather, am able to, adore him/her/it through him/her/its Creation? Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail or feeling a mist drench your face as you glimpse a shrouded sunrise in the early days of Autumn. But start reciting Scripture and I'm ready to bolt. Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approa
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Re "Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail": Isn't that why Christians have made the Eucharist the central part of their worship? It's just a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. The point was to single out one particular phenomenon as a finger pointing at The Source of all phenomena. A noseful of pine scent would have done the job just as well! The Eucharist obviously did the trick as it has survived for millennia. It was intended to facilitate a shift in consciousness but for most Christians today it has just become either a symbol (a concept remaining at the level of our everyday thinking) or a bit of superstitious, quasi-magical mumbo-jumbo. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own heart and mind that there is a God of some sort but I would much rather, am able to, adore him/her/it through him/her/its Creation? Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail or feeling a mist drench your face as you glimpse a shrouded sunrise in the early days of Autumn. But start reciting Scripture and I'm ready to bolt. Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religionist, it would appear, as shown by the attachments added to the life and death of Jesus which have culminated in various complicated doctrinal beliefs, many based upon a spiritual concept being literalised into an erroneous assumption (i.e. that a metaphysical belief brings so-named salvation) because it has not been approached with the innocence (not naivety) of a child. Not all can understand scriptures nor listen attentively to sages expounding their expression of the truth that they wish to make known. But all can see the beauty and gentleness and loving-kindness and courage and noble-cause and mercy of the tender Stranger who laid down a path that any one may see and recognise. In that faithful Example, that true Way (which includes meditation and prayer and retreating into the Silence of the desert or mountain), so is expressed all that can bring to the soul not only spiritual evolution but also relief from the burning and burning of remorse when this short life is over and the owner of the soul awakens in another condition of life to meet the results of their earth journey for good and for ill. In the manifestation of Jesus of Nazareth is found the "The image of the invisible God", "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature", " the fullness of the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Re "Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail": Isn't that why Christians have made the Eucharist the central part of their worship? It's just a morsel of bread and a sip of wine. The point was to single out one particular phenomenon as a finger pointing at The Source of all phenomena. A noseful of pine scent would have done the job just as well! It obviously did the trick as it has survived for millennia. But for most Christians today it has just become either a symbol (a concept remaining at the level of our everyday thinking) or a bit of superstitious, quasi-magical mumbo-jumbo. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own heart and mind that there is a God of some sort but I would much rather, am able to, adore him/her/it through him/her/its Creation? Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail or feeling a mist drench your face as you glimpse a shrouded sunrise in the early days of Autumn. But start reciting Scripture and I'm ready to bolt. Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religionist, it would appear, as shown by the attachments added to the life and death of Jesus which have culminated in various complicated doctrinal beliefs, many based upon a spiritual concept being literalised into an erroneous assumption (i.e. that a metaphysical belief brings so-named salvation) because it has not been approached with the innocence (not naivety) of a child. Not all can understand scriptures nor listen attentively to sages expounding their expression of the truth that they wish to make known. But all can see the beauty and gentleness and loving-kindness and courage and noble-cause and mercy of the tender Stranger who laid down a path that any one may see and recognise. In that faithful Example, that true Way (which includes meditation and prayer and retreating into the Silence of the desert or mountain), so is expressed all that can bring to the soul not only spiritual evolution but also relief from the burning and burning of remorse when this short life is over and the owner of the soul awakens in another condition of life to meet the results of their earth journey for good and for ill. In the manifestation of Jesus of Nazareth is found the "The image of the invisible God", "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature", " the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily", "The begotten God who is in the bosom of t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Upfronter, (lAnne?) your essay on Jesus and the Self is nothing short of
astoundingly eloquenttruly inspirational and it literally made the hairs on
my body stand on end!
Some brief comments: The term "Self" has been popularized (among others) by
Ramana Maharshi and may lead to some confusion among those not familiar with
his collected statements: That is, the term "Self" tends to connote an
interior identity separate from other "Selves", in a dualistic sense Adi Da
called Ramana's language "6-th level" but experientially "7-th level" He meant
that (using MMY's system), 6-th level = CC and is simply Self-Realization (CC)
as opposed to Unity or Brahman Consciousness; a true non-dualist Realization
that transcends interior and exterior.
But as further explained by Adi Da, Ramana (in his assessment) was a true
7-th "Stage' Adept, having transcended all levels of apparent duality, interior
and exterior; but he used somewhat dualistic language ("the Self") just a
matter of choice. In Ramana's world, only the Self exists, and he (except for
people coming to him who needed such instruction of a dualistic nature) didn't
even talk about a progressive system of "states" of Consciousness such as TC,
CC, CC, etc. If somebody came to him and said something like "is it OK to
chant the Gayatri mantra" he would say "Yes" because that's what would be
appropriate for that person. Otherwise, he stuck to non-progressive pure
Advaita and promoted "Self-Inquiry", where the Self is the "I behind the I" and
only sounds dualistic. In reality, all of Ramana's teachings are non-dual and
unlike MMY's programs, doesn't even consider (much) the concept of a
progressive Spiritual Sadhana. It's all the Self.
My take on Jesus: first clarify one's definitions and goals. Devotion to
Jesus is a personal matter and is akin to the frosting on a cake. But from
Ramana's pov, there's only the Cake. He didn't emphasize various Paths since
there's no paths and no goal recognized, except through Self-Inquiry, but even
this is tricky. Self-Inquiry is not to be regarded as a "progressive
technique" but rather something to appreciate, abide in, at the present eternal
moment.
Unfortunately, Ramana's message has been perverted and twisted by one of his
devotees, (HWL Poonja), morphing (regrettably) into the dictum: "Give up all
techniques and just Be". Ramana didn't say that, as explained. The
distinctions are subtle but important. Fast forward to the 80's and 90's and
we see various "Neo-Advaitins" who have embraced Poonja's words, and lost the
message of Ramana. The Neo-Advaitins have boxed themselves into a ridiculous
corner of denying the existence of anything relative. This is another tricky
question with which I have little to say, not having reached Raman's "level".
I put that word in quotes since Ramana doesn't accept the concept of levels,
unlike MMY.
Personally, I'm in MMY's camp: progressive Sadhana which is goal oriented. I
reject the Neo-Advaitic idea that to have a Spiritual goal increases the idea
that one is not "already" Realized and places an additional burden on one's
status, (as a level of ignorance).
Thus, there are numerous potential traps one can get into, many of which can
be avoided by adopting a physiological approach. That is:
Enlightenment is a true "state" of Consciousness involving a corresponding
(subtle) physiological condition involving the Chakras, vayus, etc (as
explained in Harigan's Kundalini Care book); that involves an opening of the
3-rd eye and Crown chakras. This avoids the Neo-Advaitic trap of proclaiming
that one is "already" Enlightened since everything is already the Self and
all's that's needed is for one to "Grok" it and have some Neo-Advaitin to
proclaim it. (at which time you're supposed to fork over some $ for the
privilege of hearing that you're already Enlightened.)
At any rate, thanks to you and to the others for the brilliant essays on the
Self and for making me one step closer to Jesus!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Anne, I like the prose you wrote here. It sounded like the writing of Herman Hesse in his book, Siddharta. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own heart and mind that there is a God of some sort but I would much rather, am able to, adore him/her/it through him/her/its Creation? Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail or feeling a mist drench your face as you glimpse a shrouded sunrise in the early days of Autumn. But start reciting Scripture and I'm ready to bolt. Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religionist, it would appear, as shown by the attachments added to the life and death of Jesus which have culminated in various complicated doctrinal beliefs, many based upon a spiritual concept being literalised into an erroneous assumption (i.e. that a metaphysical belief brings so-named salvation) because it has not been approached with the innocence (not naivety) of a child. Not all can understand scriptures nor listen attentively to sages expounding their expression of the truth that they wish to make known. But all can see the beauty and gentleness and loving-kindness and courage and noble-cause and mercy of the tender Stranger who laid down a path that any one may see and recognise. In that faithful Example, that true Way (which includes meditation and prayer and retreating into the Silence of the desert or mountain), so is expressed all that can bring to the soul not only spiritual evolution but also relief from the burning and burning of remorse when this short life is over and the owner of the soul awakens in another condition of life to meet the results of their earth journey for good and for ill. In the manifestation of Jesus of Nazareth is found the "The image of the invisible God", "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature", " the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily", "The begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He (Christ) unfolds Him (the Father)" and in His (Christ's) face is "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God". It seems clear to me that no human can truly fathom the Divine nature of the man Jesus even though a man He was, and yet so unlike the men and women who followed Him. Yet in Him, I believe, is the bridge between a man or woman or child and the "God whom no man has ever seen". In Jesus the Christ can be found the channel, the conduit, the Door that secures the Way over the dark abyss caused by the adverse effects of free-willed beings violating universal spiritual laws of Divine Love over the aeons through selfishness and ignorance. So in Jesus is found the most openly a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
I'm not going to be drawn into definitions of Self, as such, as everyone is right in the truth they have had revealed. I personally don't follow a tradition but I do have a way of enlivening my spiritual instinct, if you will. Pine scent, lovely! I think I know what you mean. It seems a little absurd to actually have an adoring love for Something you can’t see or touch. All I can say at present is that I know what human love is like and how overpowering it can be, which is why I can say that there is, in my experience, a progressive development of real permanent love for Something which to me is the Source of my existence but not only the Source but a sentient great big “Heart”. It’s the permanent part that adds to the whole deal. I know that this is not everybody’s experience so to most it would sound strange and fairy-tail like, and quite honestly I can’t believe that I’m surrendering this information to the Internet public and I’m not sure why I can’t stop myself from answering as it might seem lacking in humility or perhaps too personal to be told, and reading it through it seems to mean nothing very much. But in my opinion the Object of that love is "there and real" although extremely difficult if not impossible to envision. All I’ll say is that there is Eternity in front so it seems to me that the progressive development of sacrificial love is something which has no end. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own heart and mind that there is a God of some sort but I would much rather, am able to, adore him/her/it through him/her/its Creation? Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail or feeling a mist drench your face as you glimpse a shrouded sunrise in the early days of Autumn. But start reciting Scripture and I'm ready to bolt. Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religionist, it would appear, as shown by the attachments added to the life and death of Jesus which have culminated in various complicated doctrinal beliefs, many based upon a spiritual concept being literalised into an erroneous assumption (i.e. that a metaphysical belief brings so-named salvation) because it has not been approached with the innocence (not naivety) of a child. Not all can understand scriptures nor listen attentively to sages expounding their expression of the truth that they wish to make known. But all can see the beauty and gentleness and loving-kindness and courage and noble-cause and mercy of the tender Stranger who laid down a path that any one may see and recognise. In that faithful Example, that true Way (which includes meditation and prayer and retreating into the Silence of the desert or mountain), so is expressed all
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : …or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension I'm not sure I adore anybody - Christ, Spiritual Christ, One Supreme Being or whatever else anyone wants to call him/it/her. I am not quite intimately connected enough to do so but if what Seraphita calls "The Self" is the same thing as these Christs and Buddha Mind then I am not sure what she means. Are we talking about something existing outside of who we are or something that is us? Even if we are talking about The Self within ourselves I am still coming to know that as well and am still working on the "adoring" part. When I am "adoring" enough am I enlightened? Do I have to focus on a "thing"? Can I not just generally recognize within my own heart and mind that there is a God of some sort but I would much rather, am able to, adore him/her/it through him/her/its Creation? Reading scripture, libraries full of books, following one-pointed and intentional devotional paths through meditation, abstinence or asceticism just can't hold a candle to a noseful of pine scent as you stumble over moss-covered rocks on a woodland trail or feeling a mist drench your face as you glimpse a shrouded sunrise in the early days of Autumn. But start reciting Scripture and I'm ready to bolt. Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religionist, it would appear, as shown by the attachments added to the life and death of Jesus which have culminated in various complicated doctrinal beliefs, many based upon a spiritual concept being literalised into an erroneous assumption (i.e. that a metaphysical belief brings so-named salvation) because it has not been approached with the innocence (not naivety) of a child. Not all can understand scriptures nor listen attentively to sages expounding their expression of the truth that they wish to make known. But all can see the beauty and gentleness and loving-kindness and courage and noble-cause and mercy of the tender Stranger who laid down a path that any one may see and recognise. In that faithful Example, that true Way (which includes meditation and prayer and retreating into the Silence of the desert or mountain), so is expressed all that can bring to the soul not only spiritual evolution but also relief from the burning and burning of remorse when this short life is over and the owner of the soul awakens in another condition of life to meet the results of their earth journey for good and for ill. In the manifestation of Jesus of Nazareth is found the "The image of the invisible God", "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature", " the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily", "The begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He (Christ) unfolds Him (the Father)" and in His (Christ's) face is "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God". It seems clear to me that no human can truly fathom the Divine nature of the man Jesus even though a man He was, and yet so unlike the men and women who followed Him. Yet in Him, I believe, is the bridge between a man or woman or child and the "God whom no man has ever seen". In Jesus the Christ can be found the channel, the conduit, the Door that secures the Way over the dark abyss caused by the adverse effects of free-willed beings violating universal spiritual laws of Divine Love over the aeons through selfishness and ignorance. So in Jesus is found the most openly accessible Way or Emblem to the universal brotherhood and sisterhood in the Divine Being, who rather than being just an influence and far more than a Force, is sen
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
...adoration becomes loving adoration loving adoration becomes awe and loving adoration awe and loving adoration becomes awe, reverence and loving adoration which is deep and abiding love for the Supreme
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
…or the availability to adore the One Supreme Being through His Spiritual Christ, no other Way except in name and comprehension Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religionist, it would appear, as shown by the attachments added to the life and death of Jesus which have culminated in various complicated doctrinal beliefs, many based upon a spiritual concept being literalised into an erroneous assumption (i.e. that a metaphysical belief brings so-named salvation) because it has not been approached with the innocence (not naivety) of a child. Not all can understand scriptures nor listen attentively to sages expounding their expression of the truth that they wish to make known. But all can see the beauty and gentleness and loving-kindness and courage and noble-cause and mercy of the tender Stranger who laid down a path that any one may see and recognise. In that faithful Example, that true Way (which includes meditation and prayer and retreating into the Silence of the desert or mountain), so is expressed all that can bring to the soul not only spiritual evolution but also relief from the burning and burning of remorse when this short life is over and the owner of the soul awakens in another condition of life to meet the results of their earth journey for good and for ill. In the manifestation of Jesus of Nazareth is found the "The image of the invisible God", "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature", " the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily", "The begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He (Christ) unfolds Him (the Father)" and in His (Christ's) face is "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God". It seems clear to me that no human can truly fathom the Divine nature of the man Jesus even though a man He was, and yet so unlike the men and women who followed Him. Yet in Him, I believe, is the bridge between a man or woman or child and the "God whom no man has ever seen". In Jesus the Christ can be found the channel, the conduit, the Door that secures the Way over the dark abyss caused by the adverse effects of free-willed beings violating universal spiritual laws of Divine Love over the aeons through selfishness and ignorance. So in Jesus is found the most openly accessible Way or Emblem to the universal brotherhood and sisterhood in the Divine Being, who rather than being just an influence and far more than a Force, is sentient in a way that cannot as yet be grasped in these material conditions. An approachable availability is demonstrated for many upon this Earth, and, as I see it, such ease of access is also put into good and essential use in the Hereafter where necessary, in a far reaching way. So yes, the sages and wise men of all ages have shown mankind the Way forward as far as spiritual progression is concerned, and yet in the simplicity and humility of the expression of Divine Love found in Jesus Christ is cemented into the consciousness of humanity a figure or vision which, on the very instant it arises in the mind, can bring the embodiment of the wholeness and fullness of an ineffable and unthinkable Divine Nature to both little child and mature adult alike. Many wonderful gifts has the Absolute One showered upon humanity over the ages, and yet in the very thought of perfect humility and Love becoming manifest as yet another gift to humanity is, in itself, unthinkable in its fuller connotations. Simple and yet deeply profound - and a gift (of Himself) that a pure and burning Love could not fail to bestow upon those for whom the great Heart forever beats. After saying this, I would also say please do not take this too lite
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Taking a first-century (named in his honour!) rabbi as a symbol of The One Self is fine - as long as you realise that he is only one symbol among many others. The problem that Christianity faces is its designation of Jesus as the one-and-only symbol. It's tricky! As there is only a unique One Self then after you've baptised it "Jesus" to later give it another name - "Buddha Mind", say - creates confusion. But if Otto von Bismarck can also be designated "The Iron Chancellor" why can't we call The Self by other names? "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . ." Well, why not? But understand that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religionist, it would appear, as shown by the attachments added to the life and death of Jesus which have culminated in various complicated doctrinal beliefs, many based upon a spiritual concept being literalised into an erroneous assumption (i.e. that a metaphysical belief brings so-named salvation) because it has not been approached with the innocence (not naivety) of a child. Not all can understand scriptures nor listen attentively to sages expounding their expression of the truth that they wish to make known. But all can see the beauty and gentleness and loving-kindness and courage and noble-cause and mercy of the tender Stranger who laid down a path that any one may see and recognise. In that faithful Example, that true Way (which includes meditation and prayer and retreating into the Silence of the desert or mountain), so is expressed all that can bring to the soul not only spiritual evolution but also relief from the burning and burning of remorse when this short life is over and the owner of the soul awakens in another condition of life to meet the results of their earth journey for good and for ill. In the manifestation of Jesus of Nazareth is found the "The image of the invisible God", "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature", " the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily", "The begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He (Christ) unfolds Him (the Father)" and in His (Christ's) face is "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God". It seems clear to me that no human can truly fathom the Divine nature of the man Jesus even though a man He was, and yet so unlike the men and women who followed Him. Yet in Him, I believe, is the bridge between a man or woman or child and the "God whom no man has ever seen". In Jesus the Christ can be found the channel, the conduit, the Door that secures the Way over the dark abyss caused by the adverse effects of free-willed beings violating universal spiritual laws of Divine Love over the aeons through selfishness and ignorance. So in Jesus is found the most openly accessible Way or Emblem to the universal brotherhood and sisterhood in the Divine Being, who rather than being just an influence and far more than a Force, is sentient in a way that cannot as yet be grasped in these material conditions. An approachable availability is demonstrated for many upon this Earth, and, as I see it, such ease of access is also put into good and essential use in the Hereafter where necessary, in a far reaching way. So yes, the sages and wise men of all ages have shown mankind the Way forward as far as spiritual progression is concerned, and yet in the simplicity and humility of the expression of Divine Love found in Jesus Christ is cemented into the consciousness of humanity a figure or vision which, on the very instant it arises in the mind, can bring the embodiment of the wholeness and fullness of an ineffable and unthinkable Divine Nature to both little child and mature adult alike. Many wonderful gifts has the Absolute One showered upon humanity over the ages, and yet in the very thought of perfect humility and Love becoming manifest as yet another gift to humanity is, in itself, unthinkable in its fuller connotations. Simple and yet deeply profound - and a gift (of Himself) that a pure and burning Love could not fail to bestow upon those for whom the great Heart forever beats. After saying this, I would also say please do not take this too literally, spiritual consciousness is far more forgiving as far as concepts and beliefs are concerned than the limitations imposed by
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
John., there is an older tradition among Jews that said Messiah would appear
twice. The first time as the suffering servant(Isaiah 53), coming as a lamb to
take away the sins of the world, would not be recognized and second time to
come back as the Lion of Judah to reign in all righteousness. Again see the
story of Joseph.
From: "jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 10:32 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Fuxero,
My answer is simply that I was born into this tradition. At this point, I
don't see why I should reject it. Also, Jesus was predicted by the prophets in
the Old Testament to incarnate as the Messiah. The Jews assumed that the
messiah would be a political leader. But he came instead to proclaim the
kingdom of heaven as the spirit within all human beings. This is the reason why
orthodox Jews would not and cannot accept him as the messiah. IMO, that's the
same reason why Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Thx for the excellent discussion, but I believe a point is lacking. Let's
assume that Jesus has presented a body of knowledge and techniques pointing to
the Unified Field (Ground of Being) and It's Realization. Fine, but here's a
question I posed to Bishop Spong (a deceased Christian Gnostic). I asked him
that given that Buddhism and or what is collectively called "Hinduism"
(Sanatana Dharma) have countless teachers in unbroken traditions geared toward
Self Realization (Enlightenment, or whatever terms are used), and there doesn't
seem to be much of an unbroken Gnostic Tradition in Christianity comprised of
large numbers of Realized persons that we can point to (apart from luminaries
such as St. John of the Cross); then..why the Jesus part?Spong's reply:
simply because devotion to Jesus pleases him. Fine, but I don't see how any
Jesus Program is superior to what's offered as derived from Buddhism and
Hinduism. (notwithstanding the case of the Spiritual Giants in the Quaker
Tradition.)So why Jesus?
#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304 -- #yiv7413079304ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7413079304
#yiv7413079304ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7413079304
#yiv7413079304ygrp-mkp #yiv7413079304hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304ygrp-mkp #yiv7413079304ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304ygrp-mkp .yiv7413079304ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304ygrp-mkp .yiv7413079304ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304ygrp-mkp .yiv7413079304ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304ygrp-sponsor
#yiv7413079304ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv7413079304
#yiv7413079304ygrp-sponsor #yiv7413079304ygrp-lc #yiv7413079304hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv7413079304
#yiv7413079304ygrp-sponsor #yiv7413079304ygrp-lc .yiv7413079304ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv7413079304
#yiv7413079304activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv7413079304
#yiv7413079304activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv7413079304
#yiv7413079304activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv7413079304 #yiv7413079304activity span
.yiv7413079304underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7413079304
.yiv7413079304attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv7413079304 .yiv7413079304attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7413079304 .yiv7413079304attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv7413079304 .yiv7413079304attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv7413079304 .yiv7413079304attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7413079304 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv7413079304 .yiv7413079304bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv7413079304
.yiv7413079304bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7413079304 dd.yiv7413079304last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7413079304 dd.yiv7413079304last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7413079304
dd.yiv7413079304last p span.yiv7413079304yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv7413079304 div.yiv7413079304attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7413079304 div.yiv7413079304attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv7413079304 div.yiv7413079304file-title a, #yiv7413079304
div.yiv7413079304file-title a:active, #yiv7413079304
div.yiv7413079304file-title a:hover, #yiv741307
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
I have come to see an overall picture a bit like this. There are ordained and necessary stepping stones across the dangerous swell to the bank on the other side, all made with slightly different patterns in order to bring the eager wayfarer and dedicated pilgrim to the safety of dry land. They are essential and all have their part to play and no stone should be dislodged. According to my understanding, I would say in the first instance, that in Christ Jesus is found simplicity and approachability by anyone with a will – something too simple for the mind of the religionist, it would appear, as shown by the attachments added to the life and death of Jesus which have culminated in various complicated doctrinal beliefs, many based upon a spiritual concept being literalised into an erroneous assumption (i.e. that a metaphysical belief brings so-named salvation) because it has not been approached with the innocence (not naivety) of a child. Not all can understand scriptures nor listen attentively to sages expounding their expression of the truth that they wish to make known. But all can see the beauty and gentleness and loving-kindness and courage and noble-cause and mercy of the tender Stranger who laid down a path that any one may see and recognise. In that faithful Example, that true Way (which includes meditation and prayer and retreating into the Silence of the desert or mountain), so is expressed all that can bring to the soul not only spiritual evolution but also relief from the burning and burning of remorse when this short life is over and the owner of the soul awakens in another condition of life to meet the results of their earth journey for good and for ill. In the manifestation of Jesus of Nazareth is found the "The image of the invisible God", "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature", " the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily", "The begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He (Christ) unfolds Him (the Father)" and in His (Christ's) face is "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God". It seems clear to me that no human can truly fathom the Divine nature of the man Jesus even though a man He was, and yet so unlike the men and women who followed Him. Yet in Him, I believe, is the bridge between a man or woman or child and the "God whom no man has ever seen". In Jesus the Christ can be found the channel, the conduit, the Door that secures the Way over the dark abyss caused by the adverse effects of free-willed beings violating universal spiritual laws of Divine Love over the aeons through selfishness and ignorance. So in Jesus is found the most openly accessible Way or Emblem to the universal brotherhood and sisterhood in the Divine Being, who rather than being just an influence and far more than a Force, is sentient in a way that cannot as yet be grasped in these material conditions. An approachable availability is demonstrated for many upon this Earth, and, as I see it, such ease of access is also put into good and essential use in the Hereafter where necessary, in a far reaching way. So yes, the sages and wise men of all ages have shown mankind the Way forward as far as spiritual progression is concerned, and yet in the simplicity and humility of the expression of Divine Love found in Jesus Christ is cemented into the consciousness of humanity a figure or vision which, on the very instant it arises in the mind, can bring the embodiment of the wholeness and fullness of an ineffable and unthinkable Divine Nature to both little child and mature adult alike. Many wonderful gifts has the Absolute One showered upon humanity over the ages, and yet in the very thought of perfect humility and Love becoming manifest as yet another gift to humanity is, in itself, unthinkable in its fuller connotations. Simple and yet deeply profound - and a gift (of Himself) that a pure and burning Love could not fail to bestow upon those for whom the great Heart forever beats. After saying this, I would also say please do not take this too literally, spiritual consciousness is far more forgiving as far as concepts and beliefs are concerned than the limitations imposed by words either written or spoken. That is just my opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Fuxero, My answer is simply that I was born into this tradition. At this point, I don't see why I should reject it. Also, Jesus was predicted by the prophets in the Old Testament to incarnate as the Messiah. The Jews assumed that the messiah would be a political leader. But he came instead to proclaim the kingdom of heaven as the spirit within all human beings. This is the reason why orthodox Jews would not and cannot accept him as the messiah. IMO, that's the same reason why Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Thx for the excellent discussion, but I believe a point is lacking. Let's assume that Jesus has presented a body of knowledge and techniques pointing to the Unified Field (Ground of Being) and It's Realization. Fine, but here's a question I posed to Bishop Spong (a deceased Christian Gnostic). I asked him that given that Buddhism and or what is collectively called "Hinduism" (Sanatana Dharma) have countless teachers in unbroken traditions geared toward Self Realization (Enlightenment, or whatever terms are used), and there doesn't seem to be much of an unbroken Gnostic Tradition in Christianity comprised of large numbers of Realized persons that we can point to (apart from luminaries such as St. John of the Cross); then..why the Jesus part? Spong's reply: simply because devotion to Jesus pleases him. Fine, but I don't see how any Jesus Program is superior to what's offered as derived from Buddhism and Hinduism. (notwithstanding the case of the Spiritual Giants in the Quaker Tradition.) So why Jesus?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
He *is* the program. Once you have surrendered your life to Him(reborn in His
name), He guides it to completion, birth after birth.
From: "yifux...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 7:43 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Thx for the excellent discussion, but I believe a point is lacking. Let's
assume that Jesus has presented a body of knowledge and techniques pointing to
the Unified Field (Ground of Being) and It's Realization. Fine, but here's a
question I posed to Bishop Spong (a deceased Christian Gnostic). I asked him
that given that Buddhism and or what is collectively called "Hinduism"
(Sanatana Dharma) have countless teachers in unbroken traditions geared toward
Self Realization (Enlightenment, or whatever terms are used), and there doesn't
seem to be much of an unbroken Gnostic Tradition in Christianity comprised of
large numbers of Realized persons that we can point to (apart from luminaries
such as St. John of the Cross); then..why the Jesus part?Spong's reply:
simply because devotion to Jesus pleases him. Fine, but I don't see how any
Jesus Program is superior to what's offered as derived from Buddhism and
Hinduism. (notwithstanding the case of the Spiritual Giants in the Quaker
Tradition.)So why Jesus?
#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154 -- #yiv2751164154ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv2751164154
#yiv2751164154ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv2751164154
#yiv2751164154ygrp-mkp #yiv2751164154hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154ygrp-mkp #yiv2751164154ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154ygrp-mkp .yiv2751164154ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154ygrp-mkp .yiv2751164154ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154ygrp-mkp .yiv2751164154ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154ygrp-sponsor
#yiv2751164154ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv2751164154
#yiv2751164154ygrp-sponsor #yiv2751164154ygrp-lc #yiv2751164154hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv2751164154
#yiv2751164154ygrp-sponsor #yiv2751164154ygrp-lc .yiv2751164154ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv2751164154
#yiv2751164154activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv2751164154
#yiv2751164154activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv2751164154
#yiv2751164154activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv2751164154 #yiv2751164154activity span
.yiv2751164154underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2751164154
.yiv2751164154attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv2751164154 .yiv2751164154attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2751164154 .yiv2751164154attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv2751164154 .yiv2751164154attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv2751164154 .yiv2751164154attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2751164154 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv2751164154 .yiv2751164154bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv2751164154
.yiv2751164154bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2751164154 dd.yiv2751164154last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2751164154 dd.yiv2751164154last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv2751164154
dd.yiv2751164154last p span.yiv2751164154yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv2751164154 div.yiv2751164154attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv2751164154 div.yiv2751164154attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv2751164154 div.yiv2751164154file-title a, #yiv2751164154
div.yiv2751164154file-title a:active, #yiv2751164154
div.yiv2751164154file-title a:hover, #yiv2751164154 div.yiv2751164154file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2751164154 div.yiv2751164154photo-title a,
#yiv2751164154 div.yiv2751164154photo-title a:active, #yiv2751164154
div.yiv2751164154photo-title a:hover, #yiv2751164154
div.yiv2751164154photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2751164154
div#yiv2751164154ygrp-mlmsg #yiv2751164154ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv2751164154yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv2751164154
.yiv2751164154green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv2751164154 .yiv2751164154MsoNormal
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv2751164154 o {font-size:0;}#yiv2751164154
#yiv2751164154photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv2751164154
#yiv2751164154photos div div {border:1px solid
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv27511641
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
Thx for the excellent discussion, but I believe a point is lacking. Let's assume that Jesus has presented a body of knowledge and techniques pointing to the Unified Field (Ground of Being) and It's Realization. Fine, but here's a question I posed to Bishop Spong (a deceased Christian Gnostic). I asked him that given that Buddhism and or what is collectively called "Hinduism" (Sanatana Dharma) have countless teachers in unbroken traditions geared toward Self Realization (Enlightenment, or whatever terms are used), and there doesn't seem to be much of an unbroken Gnostic Tradition in Christianity comprised of large numbers of Realized persons that we can point to (apart from luminaries such as St. John of the Cross); then..why the Jesus part? Spong's reply: simply because devotion to Jesus pleases him. Fine, but I don't see how any Jesus Program is superior to what's offered as derived from Buddhism and Hinduism. (notwithstanding the case of the Spiritual Giants in the Quaker Tradition.) So why Jesus?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
S3, I'm glad you understand what I was saying. I believe there are some priests in the Catholic Church who think the same way. But they're afraid to rock the boat and be labelled a heretic. It will take hundreds of years for the mainline Christian churches to accept it because they think it is a form or pantheism. and does not follow the original thinking and dogma of the Church Fathers. For example, it took the Catholic Church at least 500 years to admit that it was wrong in accusing Galileo of heresy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : That's my take also. Though I'd expect very few church-goers would understand what we're on about. Alan Watts wrote clearly defending this same interpretation. The more correct post header should be: Jesus Christ said "I am the Unified Field" - the "I" is all of us. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Yes, it would appear so. There's a passage in the New Testament in which he broke the bread, during the Last Supper, and said, 'take this and eat for this is my body. Then, he raised the cup of wine and said, 'drink this for this is my blood'. He also said his body and blood are true food and he who eats and drinks them will never die. IOW, he is saying that Being or the unified field is true food and he who partakes in it will be become eternal. How can his body and blood be in the form of bread and wine? Because Being or the unified field is in everything in creation, including the bread and wine, and because it is simultaneously the basis of all creation. So, Jesus was saying He is in everyone and everything. In one stroke, Jesus explained a very complex concept to the apostles so that they can understand how the universe functions and that He is the source of it all. However, I don't believe the mainline Christians today and in the past fully understand this concept, which can be practically and scientifically understood in the way MMY explained the unified field or Being.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Did Jesus Christ Say He is the Unified Field?
That's my take also. Though I'd expect very few church-goers would understand what we're on about. Alan Watts wrote clearly defending this same interpretation. The more correct post header should be: Jesus Christ said "I am the Unified Field" - the "I" is all of us. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote : Yes, it would appear so. There's a passage in the New Testament in which he broke the bread, during the Last Supper, and said, 'take this and eat for this is my body. Then, he raised the cup of wine and said, 'drink this for this is my blood'. He also said his body and blood are true food and he who eats and drinks them will never die. IOW, he is saying that Being or the unified field is true food and he who partakes in it will be become eternal. How can his body and blood be in the form of bread and wine? Because Being or the unified field is in everything in creation, including the bread and wine, and because it is simultaneously the basis of all creation. So, Jesus was saying He is in everyone and everything. In one stroke, Jesus explained a very complex concept to the apostles so that they can understand how the universe functions and that He is the source of it all. However, I don't believe the mainline Christians today and in the past fully understand this concept, which can be practically and scientifically understood in the way MMY explained the unified field or Being.
